Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arms Sales To Israel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate resolutions to block transfers of large bombs and bulldozers to Israel
Summary
Senators on the floor urged blocking two proposed arms transfers to Israel — 1,000‑pound bombs and armored bulldozers — citing humanitarian harm, constitutional war‑powers concerns and public opposition; no vote outcome is recorded in the transcript.
Senators on the Senate floor debated two joint resolutions of disapproval aimed at blocking proposed U.S. transfers of 1,000‑pound bombs and armored bulldozers to Israel, with proponents saying the weapons are being used in ways that cause mass civilian harm and opponents framing some assistance as defensive.
The exchange began after a senator moved, pursuant to Section 36B1 of the Arms Export Control Act, to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of SJ Res. 138. The senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) then delivered the lead arguments supporting the two resolutions, saying many Americans "live paycheck to paycheck" and do not want taxpayer dollars used for what he called the Netanyahu government's "illegal, horrific, and expansionist war policies." He added, "enough is enough," and urged colleagues to back legal disapproval of the transfers.
Why it matters: supporters said the transfers would directly enable operations that have destroyed civilian infrastructure and contributed to large numbers of civilian casualties. Mr. Sanders argued that U.S. policy should not underwrite what he described as "an all‑out war of unspeakable destruction," and cited U.S. military aid totals and casualty figures while calling for congressional accountability.
Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland recounted visits to Gaza and the Rafah crossing, saying he saw significant civilian devastation and cited reporting and satellite imagery. He described the proposed package as including "12,000 1,000‑pound bombs and 132 armored bulldozers" and said those transfers were valued at "more than $446 million," according to his remarks, and urged support for the resolutions.
The senator from Oregon (Mr. MckEley) framed the debate as a constitutional question, arguing that a recent campaign against Iran occurred without congressional authorization and invoking the War Powers Act. He said continuing to supply offensive systems deepens U.S. responsibility for the consequences of the fighting.
Other senators who spoke in support — identified in the record as the senator from Massachusetts and the senator from Virginia — emphasized civilian harms, the need to prioritize defensive systems over offensive ones, and the economic and moral costs of continuing to transfer the specified offensive weapons. The senator from Virginia said the resolutions "are about denying particular weapons that are offensive in nature," not an end to all assistance.
What was introduced: Mr. Sanders said he offered two joint resolutions of disapproval — one to block transfers of 1,000‑pound bombs and a second to block armored bulldozers — which he described as the only formal congressional mechanism to block an arms sale. The transcript records debate and floor remarks in support of those resolutions but does not record a subsequent roll‑call vote or final disposition.
Authorities cited on the floor included Section 36B1 of the Arms Export Control Act (cited in the discharge motion) and references to the War Powers Act and international law in senators' arguments.
The next procedural step is not recorded in the provided transcript: the motion to discharge was made on the floor and the resolutions were offered, but no vote outcome or further action appears in the excerpt.
