[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1807-S1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Yemen

  Madam President, now, on another matter, the Senate will soon vote on 
a resolution under the War Powers Act. I strongly oppose this 
unnecessary and counterproductive resolution and urge our colleagues to 
join me in opposing it.
  From the outset, let me say this. I believe it is right for Senators 
to have grave concerns over some aspects of Saudi Arabia's behavior, 
particularly the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That is not what this 
resolution is about, however. In December, the Senate voted on a 
resolution that addressed this institution's concerns about Saudi 
Arabia.
  If Senators continue to have concerns about Saudi behavior, they 
should raise them in hearings and directly with the administration and 
directly with Saudi officials, as I have done, and they should allow a 
vote on the confirmation of retired GEN John Abizaid, whose nomination 
to be U.S. Ambassador to Riyadh is being held up once again by 
Democratic obstruction.
  They should also allow a vote on the nomination of David Schenker to 
be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He has been 
held up here for nearly a year. If we want to solve problems in the 
Middle East through diplomacy, we will need to confirm diplomats.
  Regarding Yemen, it is completely understandable that Senators have 
concerns over the war, the American interests entangled in it, and its 
consequences for Yemeni civilians. I think there is bipartisan 
agreement, shared by the administration, that our objective should be 
to end this horrible conflict, but this resolution doesn't end the 
conflict. It will not help Saudi pilots avoid civilian casualties. It 
will

[[Page S1808]]

not enhance America's diplomatic leverage. In fact, it will make it 
harder to achieve those very objectives.
  This is an inappropriate and counterproductive measure. First, the 
administration has already ended--ended--air-to-air refueling of 
coalition aircraft. We only provide limited noncombat support to the 
U.N.-recognized Yemeni Government and to the Saudi-led coalition. It 
certainly does not--does not--constitute hostilities.
  Second, there are real threats from the Houthis in Yemen whom Iran, 
as we all know, is backing. Missiles and explosives are being aimed at 
civilians, anti-ship missiles are being fired at vessels in key 
shipping lanes of global importance.
  If one of those missiles kills a large number of Saudi or Emirati 
civilians, let alone Americans who live in Riyadh or Dubai, say goodbye 
to any hope of a negotiated end to this conflict. These threats will 
not evaporate. They are not going to go away if the United States ends 
its limited support. So I think of the American citizens who live in 
the regions.
  Third, our focus should be on ending the war in Yemen responsibly. 
Pulling the plug on support to our partners only undermines the very 
leverage and influence we need to help facilitate the U.N.'s diplomatic 
efforts. The United States will be in a better position to encourage 
the Saudi-led coalition to take diplomatic risks if our partners trust 
that we appreciate the significant, legitimate threats they face from 
the Houthis.
  Fourth, we face real threats from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. 
We need cooperation from Yemen, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia to defeat 
those terrorists. So we should think twice about undermining these very 
partners whose cooperation we obviously need for our own security.
  Here is my bottom line. We should not use this specific vote on a 
specific policy decision as some proxy for all the Senate's broad 
feelings about foreign affairs. Concerns about Saudi human rights 
issues should be directly addressed with the administration and with 
the Saudi officials. That is what I have chosen to do. That is what I 
recommend others do.
  As for Yemen, we need to ask what action will actually serve our 
goal; that is, working with partners to encourage a negotiated 
solution.
  Withdrawing? Would withdrawing our support facilitate efforts to end 
the war, or just embolden the Houthis? Would sending this signal 
enhance or weaken our leverage over the Saudi-led coalition? Would 
voting for this resolution strengthen the hand of the U.N. Special 
Envoy, Martin Griffiths, or in fact undermine his work? Would we prefer 
that Saudi Arabia and the UAE go to China and Russia for assistance 
instead of the United States?
  The answers to these questions is pretty clear. We need to vote no on 
this misguided resolution.