Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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.