Amendment Text: S.Amdt.1739 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (07/31/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S6086 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages S6085-S6095]
  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1243. The clerk will report the 
bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1243) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murray (for Cardin) modified amendment No. 1760, to require 
     the Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress a 
     report relating to the condition of lane miles and highway 
     bridge deck.
       Coburn amendment No. 1750, to prohibit funds from being 
     directed to Federal employees with unpaid Federal tax 
     liability.
       Coburn amendment No. 1751, to prohibit Federal funding of 
     union activities by Federal employees.
       Coburn amendment No. 1754, to prohibit Federal funds from 
     being used to meet the matching requirements of other Federal 
     programs.
       Murphy amendment No. 1783, to require the Secretary of 
     Transportation to assess the impact on domestic employment of 
     a waiver of the Buy American requirement for Federal-aid 
     highway projects prior to issuing the waiver.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1739

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 
No. 1739.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S6086]]

  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1739.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To redirect certain foreign assistance to the Government of 
      Egypt as a result of the July 3, 2013, military coup d'etat)

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. _____. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi was elected President 
     of Egypt in elections that were certified as free and fair by 
     the Egyptian Presidential Election Commission and the United 
     Nations.
       (2) On July 3, 2013, the military of Egypt removed the 
     democratically elected President of Egypt, arrested his 
     supporters, and suspended the Constitution of Egypt. These 
     actions fit the definition of a military coup d'etat.
       (3) Pursuant to section 7008 of the Department of State, 
     Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2012 (division 
     I of Public Law 112-74; 125 Stat. 1195), the United States is 
     legally prohibited from providing foreign assistance to any 
     country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by a 
     military coup d'etat, or removed in such a way that the 
     military plays a decisive role.
       (4) The United States has suspended aid to countries that 
     have undergone military coups d'etat in the past, including 
     the Ivory Coast, the Central African Republic, Thailand, 
     Mali, Fiji, and Honduras.
       (b)(1) In accordance with section 7008 of the Department of 
     State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2012 
     (division I of Public Law 112-74; 125 Stat. 1195), the United 
     States Government, including the Department of State, shall 
     refrain from providing to the Government of Egypt the 
     assistance restricted under such section.
       (2) In addition to the restrictions referred to in 
     paragraph (1), the following restrictions shall be in effect 
     with respect to United States assistance to the Government of 
     Egypt:
       (A) Deliveries of defense articles currently slated for 
     transfer to Egyptian Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Ministry 
     of Interior (MOI) shall be suspended until the President 
     certifies to Congress that democratic national elections have 
     taken place in Egypt followed by a peaceful transfer of 
     power.
       (B) Provision of defense services to Egyptian MOD and MOI 
     shall be halted immediately until the President certifies to 
     Congress that democratic national elections have taken place 
     in Egypt followed by a peaceful transfer of power.
       (C) Processing of draft Letters of Offer and Acceptance 
     (LOAs) for future arms sales to Egyptian MOD and MOI entities 
     shall be halted until the President certifies to Congress 
     that democratic national elections have taken place in Egypt 
     followed by a peaceful transfer of power.
       (D) All costs associated with the delays in deliveries and 
     provision of services required under subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) shall be borne by the Government of Egypt.
       (c) Any amounts retained by the United States as a result 
     of implementing subsection (b) shall be made available to the 
     Secretary of Transportation to carry out activities under the 
     heading ``bridges in critical corridors''.

  Mr. PAUL. A once great city, Detroit, lies in ruins with 50,000 feral 
dogs roaming the city, and abandoned houses litter the landscape. It is 
a bleak and forlorn future that awaits Detroit. Creditors clamor for 
nearly $20 billion in debt. City employees wonder if they will be paid. 
There is not enough money to even replace the street lights in Detroit. 
God forbid that a major fire should break out.
  At some level I think the President does care about Detroit, but 
today all I can see is the billions of dollars--the billions of 
American tax dollars--that he chooses to send overseas. I see the shiny 
new technology, America's best, going to arm people who are indifferent 
to us, and, at worst, hate us. The President sends billions of dollars 
to Egypt in the form of advanced fighter planes and tanks. Meanwhile, 
Detroit crumbles.
  Chicago is a war zone. More people died in Chicago this year than in 
Afghanistan. Yet the President insists on building a $34 million fort 
in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton insists on spending $80 million on a 
consulate in Afghanistan that will never be used. As Detroit decays, 
Chicago is a maelstrom of violence, yet no one questions sending 
billions of the taxpayers' dollars to Egypt, to despots, to dictators 
in foreign countries.
  Our Nation's bridges are crumbling and few politicians from either 
party will question the billions of dollars that are being sent 
overseas while our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. The law is 
very clear. Everyone here in Congress can read. They recognize that the 
law says when there is a military coup, the aid must end.
  Today we will vote on whether they will obey the law or whether they 
will openly flout the law and disobey. When a military coup overturns a 
democratically elected government, all military aid must end; that is 
the law. There is no Presidential waiver. The law states unequivocally 
that the aid must end.
  When the military coup occurred in Egypt, how did the President 
respond? How did Congress respond? The President and his cohorts in 
Congress responded by shoveling good money after bad into the failed 
state of Egypt. The President is intent on building nations abroad and 
not taking care of our Nation here at home. I propose that we take the 
billion dollars that is now being illegally given to Egypt and spend it 
at home.
  We have bridges crumbling at home. Can't we fix some of our problems 
at home? We have had a bridge collapse this year in Washington State. 
We had one collapse in Minnesota a few years ago. We have a bridge in 
northern Kentucky that is becoming increasingly unsafe. Yet there is 
not enough money to repair our bridges because our politicians are 
sending the money overseas. It is unwise, and right now it is illegal.
  Countries such as Egypt are getting billions of dollars in aid. 
Meanwhile, they recently let a mob advance and climb atop our Embassy 
and then burn our flag. I say not one penny more to these countries 
that allow mobs to burn our flag.
  In between cashing our checks, Egypt finds time to convict 16 
Americans on trumped-up political charges. Fortunately, the Americans 
were able to escape. If they hadn't left the country, we would have 16 
Americans in prison in Egypt. Luckily these Americans were able to get 
out of the country.
  How do these establishment politicians respond? How will the other 
side respond today when they get up and plead we should break the 
law? What will they say about Detroit? What will they say about 
Chicago? What will they say about the bridges in northern Kentucky that 
will not be built because we are sending the money to countries that 
are burning our flag?

  I think it is unwise to send arms--particularly advanced arms--into 
the chaos of Egypt. I fear one day someone may arise in Egypt who says: 
Let's attack Israel with these planes. Let's attack Israel with these 
tanks. I fear these weapons we are giving to Egypt may someday be used 
against America and our allies.
  Even the Egyptians don't want our aid. There was a Gallup poll last 
year which showed that 70 percent of Egyptians don't even want the 
money we are sending them. To understand why we have to understand that 
American aid doesn't go to the Egyptian people; it goes to the despots 
and the dictators who run the place. We have to realize that when 
protesters gather in Tahrir Square in Cairo by the hundreds of 
thousands--and even millions--why they are unhappy with America. They 
are unhappy with America because they are being sprayed with tear gas 
bought with American tax dollars, manufactured in Pennsylvania, and 
given to the Mubarak family or given to the military. Why are they 
unhappy? Foreign aid doesn't go to foreign people; it goes to foreign 
despots and foreign dictators. Foreign aid is more likely to buy a 
lavish chateau in Paris than it is to buy bread in Egypt.
  We send money to Egypt and it buys private jets for the Mubarak 
family to fly to Europe. The Mubarak family is said to have stolen 
billions of dollars of American aid. Over the past 30 years, Americans 
have been forced to finance the Mubarak family living large. So when we 
see pictures of depression in Detroit, when we see abandoned housing in 
Detroit, when we see boarded up housing, when we see 50,000 feral dogs 
running through the streets of Detroit, when we see a once great 
country, a once great nation, a once great city lying in decay, we 
think of our politicians who chose to send that money to Egypt and not 
keep it here at home.
  As the money is stolen and squandered around the world and as Detroit 
decays, as Chicago is overrun with violence, as Americans struggle to 
put

[[Page S6087]]

food on the table, Mubarak and his family dine on caviar and champagne. 
As Mubarak flew to Europe for weekends on his jet and lived the life of 
a king, his people rotted in jail indefinitely, without charge, without 
trial. They have been living under martial law for 30 years. We wonder 
why they are unhappy with us. We have been financing the guy who has 
been giving them martial law and indefinite detention without trial for 
30 years. To add insult to injury, when they protest against their 
government, they are doused with tear gas made in our country.
  Foreign aid doesn't go to foreign people; it goes to foreign despots 
and dictators.
  The President claims he feels our pain. The President says he can 
feel the pain and he wants to help the middle class. But it seems as 
though he wants and intends to help foreign people, foreign countries 
more than he wants to help America. The President promised us hope and 
change, but the more he claims that things change, I think the more 
they stay the same.
  I wanted to believe the President would be different. I wanted to 
believe he would bring change. I wanted to believe he would stand up to 
the arms race, to the military industrial complex; that he would stop 
the flow of arms to despots and dictators across the planet. But hope 
and change just turned out to be a slogan. In Detroit and in Chicago 
and in the once great cities of America, no change came. Hope and 
change was just a slogan. The poverty, the murders, the abysmal 
schools, they continue.
  Where are you, Mr. President? In our hour of need in our country, why 
are you sending our money to people who hate us? Why are you sending 
arms to countries that don't like us or our allies? Why would we do 
that?
  The President maintains he will end the war in Afghanistan, and I 
support him. But he insists on fighting new wars, secretly, without 
congressional approval, in Libya and Syria. While Detroit decays and 
descends into bankruptcy, the President, as did so many Republicans 
before him, continues to send American tax dollars overseas to 
countries that persecute and kill Christians. Hope and change--I guess 
it was just a slogan.
  The law clearly states that when there is a military coup overturning 
elected government, the military aid must end. Even the President 
doesn't dispute the law. He doesn't even dispute it is a coup. He just 
says, I am not going to say it is not a coup or it is a coup; you can't 
make me. It is ridiculous to any intelligent person or country--and I 
wonder if anyone on the other side will stand and say it is not a coup. 
How do we say, when the military takes over a country and boots out a 
government, that it is not a coup? Only a fool or a demagog would 
attempt to argue that the military junta in Egypt is not a coup; that 
the military takeover that actually installed the lead general as 
Deputy Primary Minister is somehow not a coup.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. PAUL. Not yet.
  In a remarkable bit of sophistry, the President admits the law does 
not mandate an end to military aid when a coup takes place--he says it 
does, but he says it can't make him decide, so he is not going to 
decide whether there was a coup. What it is, is brazen and open 
flouting of the law.
  The President's argument reminds me of a third grader at recess. A 
third grader says he will not call it a coup and you can't make him. 
That is absurd. We passed a law. It is the law of the land. It says if 
a coup happens, if the military takes over or participates in a 
substantial way in removing an elected government, the military aid 
ends. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
  When the President refuses to acknowledge it is a coup or that it is 
not yet an acknowledged coup, he says the aid is going on indefinitely 
and he will go on indefinitely flouting the law.
  Americans should be outraged and insulted by such blatant shirking of 
the law. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Will we obey the 
law?
  We have the presumption to tell the world how to behave, to criticize 
Egypt for not obeying the rule of law--all legitimate concerns. Yet the 
President blithely ignores our own law. If we choose to ignore our own 
laws, can we, with a straight face, preach to the rest of the world 
about the rule of law? I think by openly flouting our own laws we take 
away from our ability to lead the world, we take away from our moral 
authority to show the right way. America has always been the leader by 
example. But how do we lead by example when we are not willing to obey 
our own laws?
  There is a question: Are we a monarchy or a republic? Are we to be 
ruled by caprice? If we pick and choose which laws to obey, what 
message does that send?
  I say to all Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--
enough is enough. We aren't going to take it anymore. We should call 
our representatives and tell them enough already. Tell them to take 
care of our country. Tell them not one penny more to countries that are 
burning our flag.
  I suggest today we do something historic and listen to the American 
people. The American people don't want good money after bad shoveled 
and sent overseas; they want to fix some of the problems we have at 
home. They want to do some Nation building here at home.
  My amendment will give our representatives a chance to vote. We are 
going to say: Yes, we will obey the law. We are not sending any more 
weapons to Egypt and we are going to take the money and we are going to 
build some bridges in our country. We are going to repair some roads. 
We are going to work on some infrastructure here at home.
  Everybody seems to say they are for it. In fact, the President has 
now come out and said he wants some grand bargain to take some new 
money and actually work on infrastructure. Mr. President, it is right 
here. I am offering it today.
  I have another amendment that would say all foreign profit can come 
home at 5 percent. We can take that revenue and build new bridges. They 
will not even let me vote on that one. So the President's grand bargain 
to increase infrastructure spending--I have it. It is on the floor.
  Mr. President, call the leadership of the Senate. Tell them it is on 
the floor and you support this; that you want infrastructure spending. 
I have a bill that would do precisely that. This amendment will do a 
little bit in that direction. Take the $1 billion we spend in Egypt and 
spend it in America.
  When we see the pictures on the news of what is going on in Detroit--
if you live in Detroit and you are suffering through the bankruptcy of 
your city; if you see around you the chaos and poverty of Detroit, you 
call the President and say: Mr. President, why are you sending that 
money to Egypt? Why are you sending money overseas when our Nation is 
crumbling, our cities are crumbling, our infrastructure is crumbling, 
our bridges are crumbling? The President says: I am going to send that 
to Egypt. I am going to send that overseas.
  This amendment will give everyone a chance to put their money where 
their mouth is, to say: Do you care about America? Do you care about 
repairing American infrastructure or do you care more about sending 
money to a dictatorship in Egypt? I think the choice is clear. I think, 
if we ask the American people, three-fourths or more of them--I think 
maybe nearly 100 percent of the American people--are with me. Let's 
spend that money at home. Let's not send that money overseas to people 
who hate us, to people who burn our flag. Keep it at home.
  There is a finite amount of money. We can't do everything. We can't 
fix everything if we have to fix everybody else's problems first. Let's 
address some of the needs we have at home.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote, to vote to keep the money at home and not 
to send it overseas.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, regretfully, I am going to oppose this 
amendment. I am going to have to cover some points which my good friend 
from Kentucky made that I think are totally wrong.
  First of all, I don't agree we need to be going up there with Federal 
dollars bailing out cities that are having problems. Of course, that is 
a decision that

[[Page S6088]]

is going to be made, I suppose, by a lot of people.
  Also, the Senator from Kentucky talks about sending billions of 
dollars overseas. I agree with my colleague from Kentucky about some of 
the foreign aid and I would join with him but certainly not in this 
case. Before I tell my colleagues why, let me clarify something. There 
are Members of this body and people outside this body who are 
conservatives believing this is some kind of a conservative program to 
defund the military in Egypt. Let me assure my colleagues it is not. 
This is coming from a person who is probably--in fact, I am certain of 
it. I have been ranked as the most conservative Member of this body 
more than any other single person. So this is coming from a 
conservative, not from a liberal and not from a Democrat.
  We have a unique situation. I wish to respond to a couple of things 
my friend from Kentucky said. First of all, yes, it probably fits the 
description of a coup. I know what the law is. The law says we can't 
send foreign aid after a coup. I have a bill drawn up right now that if 
this is determined to be a coup, it could pass the House and the Senate 
and be signed by the President in 1 day. So that is something that can 
be done. I have the best of intentions of obeying the law to the 
letter.
  As far as the situation in Egypt, Morsi is gone. Let's face that 
reality. There are a lot of things we don't like about this. But I will 
say this: If you have any feelings at all toward our good friends, our 
best friends in the Middle East--that is Israel--then you cannot 
consider this amendment. Israel has all of the interests at stake.

  It goes back to 1979, the Camp David accords. I remember that very 
well. The Camp David accords put together something between Israel and 
Egypt. But keep in mind, it is not Egypt. It is the military, the 
Egyptian military. They have been our friends. They have been Israel's 
friends for years and years and years--since 1979. If we turn our backs 
on the military now, there are others who would love to fill that 
vacuum.
  Should they have F-16s? I am glad they have F-16s. They ought to have 
more F-16s. Some have been purchased and not delivered yet. They should 
be delivered. But if it is not going to be F-16s, if we should pass an 
amendment like this, you are going to find yourself with a bunch of 
MiG-29s coming over from Russia instead of our F-16s.
  If this were 10 years ago, if this were 15 years ago, I might agree 
with my friend from Kentucky. But that was before we realized the 
threats we have in the Middle East. We have some friends in the Middle 
East. We have Israel. We have Jordan. We have Kuwait, U.A.E., Qatar, 
Saudi Arabia. If that coalition of friends in the Middle East breaks 
up, what can happen to us here in America? Our intelligence has said--
and it is unclassified since 2007--that Iran will have the capability 
of a weapon and a delivery system by 2015. If we do not have our 
friends in the Middle East to keep that from happening, we could pass 
an amendment like this, turn our backs on Israel, and that is exactly 
the thing that could happen.
  I know a lot of people want to talk on this who are a lot more 
articulate than I am. But I can say from a conservative--from this 
conservative--we cannot do this to our friends in Israel and our other 
allies in the Middle East.
  Mr. CORKER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is----
  Mr. CORKER. I want to go in the appropriate order. I see the chairman 
of the committee. I would like 5 minutes at some point. But does the 
Senator want to go ahead?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? I 
understand the opponents of this amendment have 30 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct. The Senator 
from Oklahoma has used 5 minutes of the time in opposition.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Then I ask unanimous consent that as the chair of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee I control the remainder of the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I----
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator respond to a question? 
How is the time going to be allocated?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. It is my intention to consume about 8 minutes 
approximately, to yield Senator McCain 6 minutes, Senator Graham 6 
minutes, and Senator Corker 5 minutes.
  Mr. CORKER. Perfect.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. That should take the remainder of our time.
  Mr. President, this amendment may be good politics but it is bad 
policy. I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Kentucky for 
Detroit. He and others in this Chamber have had plenty of times to vote 
for America's cities, but I have not seen those votes be there.
  Nothing in this amendment, notwithstanding what we heard, suggests 
that cutting all aid to Egypt ultimately means putting that money into 
the cities of America, such as Detroit. So let's not be mistaken about 
that.
  I share many of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague 
today about the situation in Egypt. I believe, however, halting all 
military assistance to Egypt at this time is misguided and it is 
shortsighted. It would drastically reduce U.S. influence with both the 
interim government of Egypt and the military at an incredibly delicate 
time for Egypt and its people. And in so doing, it may in fact 
undermine our shared goals and desire to see elections and a 
democratically elected government reestablished in Egypt as quickly as 
possible.
  It has been just a little more than 2 years since the onset of the 
Arab spring and a revolution in Egypt that unseated Hosni Mubarak after 
two decades in power. During these tumultuous 2 years, Egypt has 
struggled as a society with the transition to democracy that its people 
clearly want, and with efforts to create the economic opportunities 
that its people clearly need. That struggle is real and ongoing.
  The demonstrations that ousted Mubarak in a clear military coup were 
unprecedented--until they were eclipsed by demonstrations this summer 
which drew as much as a third of Egypt's population of 83 million 
people onto its streets. That is more than 30 million people who have 
been emboldened by the revolution, who are united in their call for 
reform and democracy, and who have embraced their ability and right to 
peaceful protests and to demand change.
  If you think about it, a comparable protest in the United States 
involving a third of our Nation would mean that 100 million Americans 
would be on the streets of the cities of America. That is the 
equivalent of what has been happening in Egypt.
  So my point is that Egypt is changing but perhaps not as quickly as 
we would like and with a process that has been, not surprisingly, 
pretty chaotic.
  Abandoning our diplomacy and engagement with Egypt--a country that 
sits at the heart of the Middle East--because the road that leads to 
change is not straight or certain would be naive. It might make us feel 
good, at least for a moment, but in the long run it would threaten to 
undermine vital national security interests and set back our values.
  Making such a significant change to U.S. foreign policy--with all the 
potential implications for U.S. national security and for our ally 
Israel--should not be done in haste. It should not be done carelessly 
or thoughtlessly. It should not be done without a full understanding of 
all of the ramifications of such a change. And it certainly should not 
be tacked onto the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill. It is far too important a decision to be an 
afterthought to an appropriations bill. In my view, it is ill-advised 
to make foreign policy on the fly without due consideration of all of 
the consequences.
  I would point out that my friend from Kentucky has introduced an 
identical bill that has been referred to the Foreign Relations 
Committee. Last Thursday the committee held its first extensive hearing 
on the crisis in Egypt. I can assure my friend from Kentucky that the 
committee will continue to work on this issue and to look at 
appropriate policy options through a deliberative process.
  We need time to determine whether the process underway in Egypt will 
meet the demands of the Egyptian people and lead back to democracy or 
if

[[Page S6089]]

the military leadership will dig in further and thereby invoke 
restrictions in U.S. law with respect to assistance. Our patience is 
not unlimited and our assistance is not without limitations. The 
administration is already actively reviewing U.S. assistance.

  The delivery of four new F-16 aircraft that was to occur last week 
was halted by the administration, clearly sensitive to the situation. 
At the end of the day we should allow for flexibility to deal with this 
delicate situation as events dictate, not precipitate an unwanted 
response with a knee-jerk reaction rather than deliberative reflection. 
The administration has a process to make its decisions.
  I would say this is about--as I listen to the Senator from Kentucky--
far more than Egypt. He basically opposes all foreign assistance 
abroad. The reality is that foreign assistance abroad has worked for 
the national interests and security of the United States. It has saved 
millions of lives through PEPFAR against AIDS and HIV. It has helped 
strengthen democracies. It has helped create democracies. It has helped 
create open markets for American products and services. As a matter of 
fact, these sales to Egypt--about $1.2 billion--are largely from the 
manufacture of equipment here in the United States that creates jobs 
here at home and then ultimately gets used in Egypt.
  We need a more nuanced approach, one that speaks to both our values 
and our interests, and one which provides the President with the 
flexibility needed to conduct delicate and discriminating policy in a 
challenging and chaotic environment.
  A quick end to aid at this time--meat-clever approach, when a scalpel 
is needed--is simply ill-advised.
  Last week Ambassador Dennis Ross, whose reputation and experience as 
a diplomat, Presidential adviser on the Middle East, and author, has 
made him one of the Nation's most respected foreign policy minds on 
both sides of the aisle, told the Foreign Relations Committee it is 
imperative that America ``stay in the game.'' We cannot and should not 
pull out now. Ending aid to Egypt would only cause Egyptians to shut 
the United States out of discussions and disregard our advice. 
Ambassador Ross also said that such an action could be the only thing 
to unite all Egyptians across the entire political spectrum against the 
United States--against the United States. In fact, that opinion was 
shared by the majority panelists who feared our inability to influence 
events in Egypt if we were to step out of the game.
  In the interim, as we further assess the situation, our response and 
our policy must be carefully calibrated to press for the democratic 
reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded and--simultaneously--
support U.S. national security interests in the region.
  U.S. assistance to Egypt has, for decades, helped support the Camp 
David Accords. It also supports our security interests in countering 
trafficking of weapons and people into the Sinai, and in antiterrorism 
cooperation with the United States.
  In recent weeks, Egypt's military has launched a major crackdown on 
terrorist activity and extremists in the Sinai Peninsula, carrying out 
arrests and attempting to seal smuggling tunnels connecting the Sinai 
to Gaza. U.S. cooperation is essential to the continuation of these 
activities.
  Let me conclude by saying, at the end of the day, Egyptian leaders 
and the Egyptian military must show that they are committed to an 
inclusive political process, credible democratic elections, and 
democratic governance that protects the rights of religious minorities, 
women, civil society leaders, and a diversity of political parties.
  That includes, from my perspective, vacating the June 4 verdicts for 
the 43 individuals convicted in the politically motivated trial of 
nongovernmental organization workers, including 16 Americans, and 
permitting civil society organizations to reopen their offices and 
operate freely. It also clearly means an immediate cessation of arrests 
and use of force against peaceful protestors.
  Steps that exacerbate the divide in Egyptian society, including the 
use of force against protestors and arrests and harassment of pro-Morsi 
and Muslim Brotherhood leaders, serve only to deepen the chasm and 
forestall reconciliation.
  The only way forward to a pluralistic, vibrant, and stable democracy 
lies in the inclusion of all political parties and groups, as long as 
they are committed to a democratic process and to peaceful change.
  The United States has to move cautiously, not precipitously, in this 
delicate situation. The Paul amendment is not the answer when it comes 
to our future relationship with Egypt. The future of that relationship 
will be determined by our actions in the coming weeks.
  Whether we will have a stable and willing partner on crucial matters 
of security, combating terrorism, trafficking of weapons and persons 
into the Sinai, and support for peace in the Middle East is up to us or 
we can stand aside and hope for the best. I think abandoning Egypt is a 
particularly poor choice. That is why I oppose the amendment and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a couple unanimous consent requests. 
I would also say this: This is an important debate, and I ask unanimous 
consent that--on the floor now we have Corker, we have McCain and 
Graham--I ask unanimous consent that if they use more than the allotted 
time here they be allowed to use that, and whatever time goes over that 
allotted time we have in the existing order would also be given to 
Senator Paul.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 
201, Todd Jones, to be Director of ATF; that there be 1 hour for debate 
equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on cloture on the 
nomination; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be deemed 
expired and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation, with no 
intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; 
that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of the Paul amendment, the Senate recess until 1 p.m. 
today; further, that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to 
S. 1243, the transportation bill, be 1:30 p.m. today; finally, that 
when the Senate resumes legislative session following consideration of 
the Jones nomination, the Senate proceed to a period of morning 
business for 1 hour equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, 
with the exception of Senator Inhofe, who is to be recognized for up to 
30 minutes; that following the period of morning business, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the Power nomination under the 
previous order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what this means is we will vote on the Paul 
amendment, give or take, in a half-hour, at around 11 o'clock, or 
shortly thereafter, whatever time the order allows, and we will then 
recess until 1 p.m. Then we will have the debate on the Jones 
nomination from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., then the cloture vote at 2 p.m. If 
cloture is invoked, we will immediately vote on confirmation. We could 
have two votes at 2 p.m. We will have morning business from around 2:45 
p.m. to 3:45 p.m., and then the Power nomination--to be U.N. 
Ambassador--debate from about 3:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., and then the vote 
on confirmation at around 5:45 p.m.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker.
  Mr. CORKER. I will be brief. I know that time may be extended. But 
let me

[[Page S6090]]

start by saying I understand how citizens across our country are 
frustrated. Our country has gone through financial distress. We have 
economic issues that are impacting people of all walks of life. I know 
as they look at what is happening around the world, there is 
frustration, generally speaking, with issues relative to foreign aid. I 
understand that.
  I also understand we are a nation of laws. We have had an event in 
Egypt which is going to cause us to have to deal with that. I think we 
can deal with that in due time and live up to the laws of this Nation. 
I also understand, though, that we are the greatest Nation on the face 
of the Earth. One of the reasons we are the greatest Nation is because 
of the values we extend around the world and the fact that we have been 
a voice of calm.
  We have been a country that has tried to continue to engender peace. 
I know the Senator from Kentucky and I share Fort Campbell, a place 
where some of our most outstanding fighting men and women are based. I 
know the Senator understands that much of what we do with foreign aid 
is to try to keep those men and women off the battlefield and in 
training. We do that to try to keep peace and to keep those men and 
women who protect our country from having to go to war.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey just talked about the 
importance of Egypt. From the very beginning, when this all began just 
within the last month or 6 weeks, I have believed that the 
administration, candidly, has handled this well; that our Nation should 
be the voice of calmness. We should try to be the steady hand that 
allows this transition to occur in the right way.
  At the same time, we should push them toward democracy. I think that 
is exactly what we are doing. We have had a debate throughout this week 
in our lunch sessions among Republicans. I know the Senator from 
Kentucky has made it clear that the poll numbers indicate we should cut 
off foreign aid. I want to say that we have tremendous responsibilities 
as Senators. One of the responsibilities we have, no doubt, is to 
represent our citizens.
  On the other hand, we know that sometimes we understand that we 
should sell to the citizens the reasons that we do the things we do on 
this floor. I think most people in this body understand that just on a 
THUD bill, having an amendment that cuts off aid to Egypt is not a 
thoughtful process as it relates to foreign aid.
  My appeal today is really not to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, although I am sure some of them are contemplating what to do. 
But my appeal is to my friends on this side of the aisle. I have talked 
to many of them in private. I think many of them know this is terrible 
public policy.
  No doubt, without us explaining to the American people why we should 
not jerk the rug out from under Egypt as they go through this 
transition; no doubt, without us sharing the importance of that, the 
American people are going to look at aid to Egypt and see what is 
happening there and say: No, let's take that money and let's do 
something else. I think most people on this side of the aisle 
understand that is terrible public policy. I think most people on this 
side of the aisle want to stand and to be thoughtful Senators and do 
not want to have a poll-tested foreign policy.
  We are going to have plenty of time to debate this issue in 
September. I think all of us know a lot is going to be happening during 
the recess. We have two Senators who are traveling to Egypt over the 
weekend to look at what is occurring there. I am going to be in the 
area in a few weeks.
  It seems to me, as the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, 
instead of having some poll-tested amendment that may play well in the 
short term, what we should do as Senators is be thoughtful, understand 
the greatness of this Nation, understand the millions of lives and 
livelihoods that are at stake in us being a calm hand in Egypt, 
understanding the impact that this is going to have on people all 
around the world and certainly our standing in the world, but our 
continued ability to help promote human rights, promote democracy, 
promote peace, promote calm.
  So I would just urge the Senators on our side of the aisle, we have 
these things that come up, and we certainly have groups who come forth. 
I think all of us understand that is a big vote. This is a vote that 
says a lot about who we are as Senators. This is a vote that gives us 
an opportunity to step away from those short-term, hot, poll-tested 
amendments that have nothing to do with furthering the greatness of 
this Nation.
  I would urge everybody in this body to stand, to be Senators, and to 
do what we know is the right thing to do; that is, to be calm, to 
address this issue as we should in the right way this September when 
all of us have more information to deal with this issue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak. I hope 
this body will rise and conduct themselves as the Senate should on 
issues of this importance. I thank the chairman for the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, let me just say briefly that I have 
gotten a lot of calls about Egypt as well. Look, I understand it. We 
look at what is happening over there, we look at some of the wild 
things that are happening in the streets, certainly tragedies as well. 
We see the oppression of religious minorities, and we wonder: Why do we 
continue to give aid to a country that does that? I think that is a 
very important question.
  I think the problem we face is we in this place are sometimes put 
into a position between two absolutes, when there are other options 
available to us. The choice before us is not to cut off aid to Egypt or 
to continue aid to Egypt. I think the opportunity we have now is to 
restructure aid to Egypt in a way that furthers our national interest.
  What is our national interest in Egypt? Our national interest is to 
have a secular, stable, democratic government that provides security so 
their economy can grow, a government that lives up to the Camp David 
Accords, that cooperates in counterterrorism, that prevents 
discrimination to religious minorities. Our foreign aid should be 
restructured--not simply canceled but restructured--so that it fits and 
fills that aim that we have for that country and for our national 
security interests in that country. That means we should restructure 
our foreign aid, not simply eliminate it but go back to the Egyptians 
and say: If you want to continue to get foreign aid from the United 
States, you are going to have to show measurable improvement on these 
four things: You are going to show us how you are protecting religious 
minorities; you are going to have to show us how you are advancing 
toward democracy and stability. You are going to have to show how you 
are doing these things. That needs to be measured. If they stop doing 
it, the aid stops coming.
  I would also say regarding restructuring the aid that the aid should 
be geared toward what they need. They probably do not need that many 
for more F-16s. What they need is more capacity building for internal 
security. What they need is more capacity building to live up to the 
Camp David Accords. That is what they need. Our aid should be aimed 
toward that.
  I also think it is a mistake to just say we are eliminating aid 
completely because if we eliminate aid completely, we lose leverage. 
They are still going to buy weapons. They will just not get them from 
us and our influence will be diminished.
  So I think there is a third way. I think what has happened in Egypt 
is a unique opportunity to restructure--not to cancel but to 
restructure--and reframe our relationship with Egypt. If they do 
certain things, they will continue to get aid. If they move toward 
certain goals that are in our national interest, they will continue to 
get aid. They will continue to get aid that helps them meet these 
goals, not simply anything they ask for.
  This is the opportunity we have now. This should be done in a 
thoughtful and careful way. I hope that is the direction the body will 
move. I think to simply cancel aid without putting these other 
conditions in place is a missed opportunity from which we should not 
walk away.
  So I would say to our colleagues, let's not simply cut off aid. Let's 
take

[[Page S6091]]

the time to work so that we can restructure aid with Egypt in a way 
that furthers our national security interests: a secular, democratic 
government that lives up to the Camp David Accords, that cooperates in 
counterterrorism, that respects religious minorities, and that provides 
the internal security they need to create the economic growth they need 
so that they can be stable now and in the future and be a partner of 
ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period 
for morning business following the consideration of the Jones 
nomination be extended by 40 minutes, with the additional time being 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with 
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the 
exception of Senator Inhofe for 30 minutes and Senator McCain for 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. 
First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator 
from Florida. Now is the time to be creative with our assistance to 
Egypt to try to change things while there is still hope of things 
changing in a positive direction.
  I certainly understand. Why should we be selling F-16s to people who 
behave this way? The administration has put on hold the four F-16s that 
were due to be delivered to Egypt, trying to find out what is going to 
happen next. That makes sense to me. But why are we selling weapons to 
Egypt? It is because if we do not, someone else will. I want them to 
have F-16s and come to our pilot training bases. I want Egyptian 
officers to come to our military training academies. I want a 
relationship with the Egyptian military that can be beneficial to our 
national security interests. I want the people who build F-16s in 
America to get the business from Egypt to get some of our money back.
  If they buy MIGs or Mirages we lose that. It is not a question of if 
they are going to buy fighter planes; it is a question of who they are 
going to buy them from. We have every right to withhold sales. We have 
every right to put them on hold temporarily. But to just sever this 
relationship now would be a huge mistake.
  In fairness to Senator Paul, he says we would resume aid once they 
get their act together and move back toward democracy. I think that is 
something worth noting. That is an understanding on his part that he is 
looking for an outcome that we can be more supportive of. The 
difference I have is that if we cut off aid now, then I cannot tell you 
the consequences of what that would mean in terms of moving in the 
direction we would all like.
  Unintended consequences to the decision jump out pretty clearly in my 
mind, and most of them are bad. Is it a coup? It certainly looks like 
one. It certainly sounds like one. But at the end of the day, if we are 
moving toward democracy and the military steps back and democratically 
elected leaders take over, I think that is the goal for all of us.
  I wish we did not live in a world like we do. I wish things were 
easier. I wish the Arab Spring had been more successful. But the one 
thing I can say is that what happens in Egypt really does matter to us. 
If the largest country in the Arab world, the heart of the Arab world, 
Egypt, becomes a failed state, I promise you it will affect our 
national security interests for decades to come. It would be a 
nightmare for Israel, and it would take the whole region down a path 
that would be at best chaotic.
  Can we prevent a failed state in Egypt? I think we can. I don't know 
for sure what is going to happen, but I do know this: If America does 
not try, if we do not stay engaged and shape history rather than 
observe it, we will pay a heavy price as a nation. So part of this 
amendment takes money that would be going to the Egyptian military and 
puts it on projects in the United States. I think one is a bridge in 
Kentucky. I have no doubt that there is a need for bridges in Kentucky 
and South Carolina. I would love to get my port deepened.
  But to the people of Kentucky and to the people of South Carolina, if 
we stop the 1 percent of our budget--it is $50 billion. That is no 
small sum. But if we cancelled it all out and just left $3 billion for 
Israel--it seems everybody likes that idea. If we had $3 billion to 
spend on affecting the world, is that smart?
  How much of the debt would be retired if we canceled all foreign aid 
and brought it back into the United States? Not a whole lot. But here 
is what I believe would happen. If America withdrew our foreign 
assistance, a lot of bad things would happen to us. Having a say, 
having influence in a world that is increasingly dangerous seems to me 
to be a good idea. I am tired of having to resort to the military as 
the only solution to affect things.
  The people in Egypt, the government particularly, wants a 
relationship with us. They have to earn it, as Senator Rubio said. But 
to cut off our relationship with Egypt at this critical time, I think, 
would be extremely ill-advised, and the consequences to the people of 
Kentucky and South Carolina and every other State in the Union would be 
significant.
  To my colleagues, when you cast your vote today about pausing, not 
terminating aid, but trying to reconstruct aid, I don't know how that 
fits in a 30-second sound bite. It is probably easier to explain the 
``no'' vote than it is a ``yes'' vote. But I do know this: Your country 
would be well served if you decide today to pause and wait to find out 
the right answer in Egypt.
  I do know this: If Egypt goes, the entire region blows up. The 
biggest fear I have is radical Islamists are closer to getting nuclear 
weapons and chemical weapons than any time in my lifetime. If Egypt 
becomes a failed state, that is one more problem for us to have to deal 
with, rather than focusing on the Iranian efforts to march toward a 
nuclear weapon.
  Radical Islam has not forgotten about us. The question for us is have 
we forgotten about radical Islam. If we wish to stop this march in the 
Middle East of radical Islam getting stronger and stronger and 
stronger, let's try to hang on to our relationship with Egypt. If it 
becomes a failed state, and the Sinai becomes one of the great safe 
havens for terrorist groups--and the Egyptian Army, to their credit, is 
now involved with the Sinai--the cataclysmic effect of a failed state 
in Egypt would be the biggest boost to radical Islam I could think of. 
It would do a lot of damage to our national security and our best 
friend in the region, Israel.
  I have a letter from our APAC. I asked them to comment on this. They 
state:

       Dear Senators Menendez and Corker:
       We are writing to express our concerns over the Paul 
     amendment to the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that 
     would eliminate military assistance and sales to Egypt. We do 
     not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time, 
     as we believe it could increase the instability in Egypt and 
     undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our 
     Israeli ally.
       As you know, Egypt is the largest Arab state in the Middle 
     East and has played a vital role in advancing key U.S. 
     interests in that region. Citing just two examples, the 
     government of Egypt has maintained the peace with Israel and 
     is taking important steps to address the instability in the 
     Sinai. Events in Egypt are rapidly evolving, and we believe 
     that for now the United States should avoid taking any 
     precipitous actions against Egypt such as cutting off all 
     assistance. We look forward to continuing to work with you on 
     these critical issues.

  One final thought: Maybe one day I will agree with Senator Paul in 
saying we have to sever our ties with the Egyptian military and the 
Egyptian people. Maybe one day I will come and cosponsor the Senator's 
amendment or maybe come up with one of my own.
  I can tell you if that day ever comes, it will be one of the saddest 
days of my life because that would mean Egypt is gone. If Egypt is 
gone, all hell is going to break loose.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, a 
member of the committee, Mr. McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona has unlimited time.

[[Page S6092]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Kentucky wish to respond?
  Mr. PAUL. Go ahead.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think it is important in the context 
of this amendment on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
bill that we put into focus what this amendment is really affecting. It 
is affecting the most important nation in the Arab world, the heart and 
soul of the Arab world, Egypt. All countries in the Middle East are 
important, but Egypt is the most important.
  In Egypt today there are demonstrations, there are scores of people 
being killed, hundreds being wounded. This Friday, only 2 days from 
now, after prayers, there are predictions that there could be even more 
carnage that will take place as a result of the pro-Morsi people taking 
to the streets of Cairo and other cities throughout Egypt.
  I think we ought to consider this amendment in the context of what is 
happening in arguably the most important nation in the Arab world. 
Should we ask ourselves that at this point without adequate hearings, 
without adequate discussion, without input from the administration, as 
well as the oversight responsibilities by the Foreign Relations 
Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, 
all of whom, chairmen and ranking members, are opposed to this 
amendment?
  First, I caution against a rush to judgment on this issue. It 
requires, frankly, more than 1 hour equally divided of debate on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I would also like to point out this amendment is part of a larger 
debate that has been going on in the Republican Party for well over a 
century. Prior to World War I, there was the isolationist wing of our 
party. After World War I in the 1930s, there were the America Firsters. 
After World War II, there was the Eisenhower wing of our party and the 
Taft wing. The debate has gone on for the heart and soul of the 
Republican Party.
  This debate and this amendment that is posed by my friend from 
Kentucky is part of that overall debate as to what the role of the 
United States should be in the world. Should we take our money from 
Egypt and give it to build a bridge in Kentucky? Should we take our 
foreign aid and cut it to the point to where we no longer have 
influence in these countries throughout the world and spend it on much 
needed projects that are the result of a very ailing and still serious 
recession in which we still remain?
  I think the vote on this amendment has even larger implications than 
that of whether we should cut off all assistance to Egypt. By the way, 
my friends, I don't think it is an accident that APAC, our friends 
there who represent the interests of the State of Israel, have opposed 
this amendment. If there is further upheaval in the Sinai, and if there 
is a collapse of the rule of law in Egypt, I don't think there is any 
doubt that the threat to Israel is dramatically increased.
  I made it clear, and so has my friend from South Carolina, that it 
was a coup. It was a coup and our law calls for that. But that is an 
implementation of a law that needs to be done in a way that is in 
consultation with the Foreign Relations Committee, the Appropriations 
Committee, and, in fact, all Members of the Senate.
  I think it is important for us to send a message to Egypt that we are 
not abandoning them, but what we are doing is trying to caution them to 
try to modify their behavior, to tell General Aziz that he has to have 
an inclusive government, he has to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to 
partake in the upcoming elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood has to be 
told that they have to renounce violence.
  Right now Egypt is spiraling down into a situation of chaos, which I 
can promise my colleagues will sooner or later pose a threat to our 
vital national security interests. The most important nation in the 
Arab world descending into chaos is going to be a threat to the United 
States of America.
  I urge my colleagues--and I urge my friend from Kentucky, with 
respect--to realize this amendment would send the wrong message at the 
wrong time. It may be coincidental, but this Friday is going to be an 
important day in Egypt. Should we be sending the message to the 
Egyptians: OK, you are on your own?
  Yes, other countries in the region are contributing enormously to the 
Egyptians without conditions. But the support or condemnation of the 
United States of America, the best, most free, and still most 
influential Nation in the world, is of vital importance. At this time, 
I think it would be a terrific mistake for the United States to send 
the message to Egypt: You are on your own.
  I hope we understand that it is not about U.S. foreign assistance; it 
is about what serves our interests and our values. This, my friends, is 
a debate that we need to have over the weeks, months, and years ahead 
in, probably, one of the best places to have that debate.
  I urge my colleagues, no matter how they feel about assistance to 
Egypt, that we are committed. I urge them to appreciate that we are 
committed to a long debate about this issue.
  I have confidence in the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
that we will be addressing this issue seriously. The Senator from 
Kentucky is a member and would certainly take part.
  I urge my colleagues to understand that an amendment on the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development-led appropriations bill 
is not the venue. We need to have this debate not only about Egypt but 
America's role in the world. I look forward to joining him, but today 
is not the day to take a step that could have repercussions over time 
that will damage the vital national security interests of the United 
States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to table the Paul amendment.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. PAUL. This is exactly, precisely the time it should come up 
because on the infrastructure bill that we are looking at, this gives 
Americans the chance to show great contrast. Do you want to do nation 
building overseas or do you want to do nation building at home? Do you 
want to spend billions of dollars in Egypt or would you rather build 
some roads at home?
  I think it provides a perfect contrast. In fact, there couldn't be a 
better place to have a discussion on this issue.
  We always hear a lot of empty thoughts and empty promises: Oh, we 
will do this in committee. We will do this.
  They don't want this debate. I have been fighting tooth and nail 
against Members of my own party to get to this debate, to bring it to 
the floor, to bring it to the American people.
  Let's be very clear about what the amendment does. It halts military 
aid until they have an election. It is just obeying the law.
  Let's be very clear. Maybe we should do a summary of what their 
arguments are. This is a summary of their arguments: They love sending 
American money overseas so much that they don't mind breaking the law. 
I didn't hear one of them explain how they are going to adhere to the 
law. The law says military aid ends when there is a coup. The President 
says you can't make him say there is a coup. There probably is a coup, 
but he is never going to say it, and he is never going to adjudicate 
it. Who is going to adjudicate whether there is a coup?
  This is about temporarily halting aid. Some people rise and say: Oh, 
we will be closed out, and they will buy their weapons someplace else. 
They don't have any money. We give them the money to buy our weapons.
  Some have said they want to promote democracy. Well, there is an 
exemption. You can spend as much money on democracy promotion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PAUL. Not now.
  The thing is, we have to understand what this is about. We have to 
understand this is about a temporary halting of buying weapons. People 
say: Well, if we don't give them planes, we don't pay them to buy our 
planes, they will think we don't like them. They will go to war with 
Israel and everything will be so much worse.
  They have hundreds of F-16s. They have thousands of tanks. I am 
precisely worried about them using them against Israel when there is 
chaos and blood running in the streets, when there are millions of 
people protesting.

[[Page S6093]]

  Do you think it is a good time to send more weapons? Do you think it 
is a good time to send more weapons when millions of people are in the 
streets?
  What happens if these weapons are used against Israel? The canard of 
bringing the letter--it always happens. Someone brings in a letter. I 
have spoken to many people who love, respect, and have a great deal of 
admiration for Israel. I admire our relationship and alliance and am 
very proud of the fact that we stand together on so many issues. To 
bring it up and say the people who are against this don't care about 
Israel is just a canard.
  I think this precisely--continuing to arm an unstable government in 
Egypt--could well be to Israel's harm. This is precisely why I bring 
this amendment forward.
  Also, it needs to be clear for the record that everyone who has come 
forward together to send more of your money overseas, to send good 
money after bad, every one of them was for sending it to the Muslim 
Brotherhood. We hear them talking about Islamic jihadists and how they 
are worried about them. No, they are not. They were for funding the 
Islamic jihadists. They were for funding the Muslim Brotherhood just 
months ago.
  I have had this vote before. I voted to cut off aid to the Muslim 
Brotherhood also. I have produced an amendment. They all voted against 
it then because we were going to do this on a more rational, reasonable 
pace someday, somewhere, in some fictitious committee. No, we are not. 
They want the money to continue. It doesn't go to the Egyptian people. 
It doesn't buy good will. It buys ill will. Do you know what the money 
is spent on? Tanks. Tanks roll over people in protest.

  I have no love lost for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they have 
disappeared them. We are going to be giving money to the military that 
is disappearing people. No one has heard from President Morsi. Most 
people think he was actually elected in a fair election. I don't agree 
with radical Islam. I don't think he would be a good President for any 
country. I wouldn't give him any money. But we are going to give money 
to people who make people disappear?
  Does anybody remember the Soviet Union? These same people stand and 
say how bad it is the Soviet Union makes someone disappear. I am 
absolutely with them. I support that. It is terrible. That is what the 
military in Egypt is doing--making people disappear. Most of the 
members of the government haven't been seen in days, maybe weeks. We 
have no idea where they are.
  Once again, let me be clear. I have no sympathy for them. I don't 
want to give them money either. But all these people who want to fund 
the military, they all want to fund the Muslim Brotherhood. The only 
thing consistent about their argument is sending your money to other 
people.
  There is a finite amount of money. Detroit lays in ruins, Chicago is 
full of violence, and there are bridges everywhere. Don't let them 
paint this that I have some special thing in Kentucky. There are no 
earmarks. There is no special money going to Kentucky. This is going 
into the Transportation bill for the whole country.
  There is actually nothing in here special for Chicago or Detroit, but 
I point it out that we have problems at home. Maybe we should do some 
nation building here at home.
  The other side will falsely say: Oh, you want isolationism. You want 
to disengage from the world. Hogwash. I want to be involved. I am for 
being involved with Egypt. I am for trade. I am for international and 
global interaction and diplomacy and all those things. But do you think 
you are making the world a better place by sending a few more F-16s and 
tanks and tear gas to Egypt? Do you think that is somehow making the 
world a safer place? No.
  If I thought the foreign aid was going to do something good, I might 
be for it. Mubarak and his family fly on private jets, dine on caviar 
and champagne. Your money is more likely to buy a chateau in Paris for 
the Mubarak family than it is to buy bread for the people of Egypt.
  They say: Oh, well, the Egyptian people will not like us anymore if 
we don't give them money. Seventy percent of the Egyptian people have 
said they do not want our money. It doesn't go to them. The people, by 
the millions, are rioting in Cairo. By the hundreds of thousands they 
are rioting in Tahrir Square. They are not rioting for American aid. 
They are rioting for us to quit giving aid to the despots who rule 
them.
  Mubarak ruled for 30-some-odd years. He ruled by martial law. He made 
people disappear also. What about human rights? What about dignity? 
What about trials they just recently--the Muslim Brotherhood--tried 16 
Americans in absentia. If they were there, they would have put them in 
jail. Yet all these same people are afraid to take away money.
  How do you think leverage would best work? How would we have 
leverage? Maybe if we withheld some aid, we would have leverage. But if 
you give them everything they want all the time, any time, do you think 
they are going to do something differently? They say the definition of 
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a 
different response. We have given the aid for 30-some-odd years.
  We gave a dictator in the Congo--Mobutu--aid for years and years. 
They called his wife Gucci Mobutu. Why? Because she would take a Louis 
Vuitton bag, full of about $1 million in cash, to Paris and spend it in 
a weekend--your money, our money, spent on lavish homes. Mobutu had 
seven palaces. I think Mubarak has six or seven palaces. They steal the 
money. It doesn't buy the good will of the people. It actually buys ill 
will. It does completely the opposite of everything they say it does. 
It does completely the opposite.
  So there is a disagreement on this. But the one thing there is not a 
disagreement on is that it is against the law. The Republican Party 
maintains: Oh, we are for the rule of law, and we proudly beat our 
chest all the time and say to Democrats: Oh, you don't want the rule of 
law; the President disobeys the rule of law. Guess what. This time many 
Democrats and Republicans will flout the rule of law because the rule 
of law says military aid ends when you have a coup. It doesn't say you 
can wait around until it is convenient for you and maybe you can parcel 
out the aid in different ways. It doesn't say that. It says military 
aid ends until there is an election. It is very clear about this.
  So the argument is about whether you believe in the rule of law. If 
you do, there is no question you have to vote for this amendment 
because this amendment simply restates the law. I am not even creating 
the law. I am just restating the law that says aid ends and it resumes 
when there is an election.
  So those who say he is against all aid, don't listen to him, he is 
against all aid, that is not what this amendment does. This amendment 
enforces the law that actually every one of these men and women voted 
for. They voted for this law. It has been on the books 30-some-odd 
years, and the law says that aid ends when you have a military coup. So 
they are all going to vote to bypass a law they have all supported. 
Every one of them supported this law.
  This isn't some extreme position of no aid; this is a position of 
temporarily halting it. It is their plan, but it is not convenient now 
to obey the law they passed.
  This is an important debate. It is not about doing things to harm 
Israel; it is about doing things that, actually, I think would be 
beneficial to Israel. It is not about ending all aid; it is about 
obeying the law. It shouldn't be about whether aid is good or bad. I 
think there are a lot of bad things and unintended consequences that 
come from the aid, but it is not about that. It is about whether we are 
going to obey the law.
  I say think long and hard about this. Some say they are going to do 
something more important than what their people at home want, and they 
are very proud they are going to stand against the will of the people. 
Three-fourths of Republicans, three-fourths of Democrats, and three-
fourths of Independents or higher think it is a bad idea to be sending 
good money after bad overseas. We do have problems at home and this 
could go toward fixing them.
  Some say it is only 1 percent. Foreign aid is only 1 percent. Guess 
what. If you cut 1 percent of the budget each year, the budget balances 
within about

[[Page S6094]]

5 years. It is called the penny plan. Many on my side have actually 
endorsed this plan. So 1 percent isn't an insignificant amount of 
money, and it is not working. It is doing the wrong thing.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this has been a robust debate. Listening 
to my friend and colleague from Kentucky, I appreciate his views, but I 
strongly disagree with him. Above all, let's say what it is and what it 
is not about. This is not about Mubarak and chateaus. Mubarak is gone. 
The Egyptian people decided that. He is gone. It is not about Mobutu or 
anybody else. You can conflate anything you want and throw it up 
against the wall, but this is a question of whether we will continue to 
pursue our own national interest and national security in Egypt, in the 
Middle East.
  This is, in fact, about democracy. It is about the 30 million who 
were protesting in the streets of Egypt, whom Senator Paul referred to. 
But their call is not for us to leave; their call is for us to engage 
with them. As the experts in this field who gave testimony before the 
committee said, the one uniting thing among all elements of Egyptian 
society we could do is cut off all aid. It would unite in what? Against 
us.
  This is about making sure we have a stable Middle East. It is not a 
canard to suggest that Israel's security is at stake, because when you 
have hundreds of tunnels in the Sinai being used by extremists to send 
weapons into Gaza to attack Israel, it is about their security. I think 
no one knows better about their security than the State of Israel 
itself knows about their security.
  It is not a canard. It is a fundamental element of whether we are 
going to have an ally that can be safe and secure. It is a fundamental 
element of whether we are going to have the ability to affect the 
outcome in Egypt in a way that will create stability and peace. It is a 
fundamental element of whether we have to send soldiers abroad versus 
keeping them here at home. Because when there is peace and stability, 
we ultimately do not have to engage with our military in pursuit of our 
national interest and security.
  When terrorists cannot organize in Egypt, we are safer at home in the 
United States. So let's not cut off all aid to Egypt in a 
transportation, housing, and urban development bill when, in fact, our 
vital national interests are at stake. There is plenty of opportunity 
to help America's cities. I was a mayor. No one wants to help America's 
cities more. You will get to do that if you vote for the THUD bill, if 
you put your vote up. But this is not a way to achieve that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Ronald Reagan used to say facts are stubborn things. The 
Senator from Kentucky just said Egypt has no money. Isn't it a fact the 
Gulf countries and the Saudis have just given them $13 billion?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCAIN. Again, isn't the question whether the Senator from 
Kentucky knows what is better for Israel or Israel knows what is better 
for Israel? The fact is, AIPAC and the Israelis are adamantly opposed 
to this amendment; isn't that correct?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. It is true they are opposed, and I would assume Israel, 
a sovereign state, knows what its security interests are better than 
anybody else.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. What is the status of time right now? I think we should 
bring this to a close soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time remaining is under the control of the 
Senator from Kentucky, and he has 2 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, several points have been made about whether 
we should engage with Egypt. Absolutely, we should. But the Egyptian 
people don't see it as engagement when the engagement is at the end of 
a truncheon, when the engagement is tear gas bought with American money 
and then sprayed on them. They do not quite understand that as 
engagement. So buying arms--American tanks and American tear gas--to be 
used for crowd control isn't exactly what the Egyptian people have in 
mind as far as engagement.
  With regard to Israel, there is no unified statement from the nation 
of Israel saying they are for this. I have had both private and public 
discussions with the leaders of Israel, and to tell you the truth, 
without naming individuals, I can tell you they are not too excited 
about sending more arms to Egypt. So for someone to come to the floor 
and say they speak for the nation of Israel, they speak for all people 
who love Israel in our country, is false.
  There are probably 20 different groups in our country that support 
the nation of Israel and support them as our ally. I speak to them all 
the time. I visit with them daily and weekly in our office. So what I 
can tell you is if you talk to the people, to the grassroots and not to 
the so-called leadership, you will find a much different story. Because 
I would promise you--let me speak to the entire crowd at an AIPAC 
meeting and we will see whether they like sending more weapons to the 
Muslim Brotherhood or more weapons to Egypt. I think you will find a 
resounding no.
  This amendment is ultimately about the law, and I hope my colleagues 
will remember that if they vote against this amendment they are 
flouting the law, they are voting to disobey the law, they are voting 
against the rule of law, and they are actually voting against a law 
they have all voted for.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think most Members of the body realize 
the THUD bill is not the place to address major foreign policy. I think 
all understand that in September it is the plan of this body to deal 
with the legal issues regarding foreign aid to Egypt, so I move to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. 
Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Heller
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Heitkamp
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.

[[Page S6095]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________