Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen That Have Not Been Authorized By Congress

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself with those clear, concise comments of my friend and colleague from the great State of Alaska. He is absolutely right from not only a military standpoint but also from the standpoint of getting this resolved through a political resolution.

We are going to consider the Senate joint resolution today, and it is a joint resolution that directs removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostility in the Yemen conflict unless authorized by Congress. The premise of this resolution is fundamentally flawed.

Let's start here, though. Every single one of us--all 100 of us--can agree what a horrible situation this is and what a horrible catastrophe this is in Yemen. But this resolution sets a bad precedent for using the War Powers Act to express political disagreements with a President under expedited Senate rules.

I want to start by making it absolutely clear what is and what is not happening with respect to our current U.S. engagement in Yemen.

First of all, this is what isn't happening. What is not happening is the injection of U.S. troops into active hostilities in Yemen. We are not doing that.

What we are doing, however, is most important. We provide limited, noncombat support, including intelligence sharing, and the practices that minimize civilian casualties to the Saudi-led coalition. This support is advisory in nature and helps defend the territorial integrity of the region, which faces a very real threat from the Iranians and the Iranian-backed Houthis.

This point can't be understated. The United States conducts war operations entirely differently from any other country on the face of the Earth, and it is done with a direct and involved method of minimizing civilian casualties. Our presence here assists the parties in conducting operations to minimize those civilian casualties, and it is badly needed there because there are tremendous civilian casualties.

Iran's support for the Houthis, notably the transfer of missiles and other weaponry, threatens to undermine our partners' territorial integrity. It imperils key shipping routes and puts U.S. interests at risk, including the thousands of U.S. personnel and citizens currently within the range of Iranian-made missile systems under the control of the Houthis. That said, there can be no argument that after 4 long years of conflict, Yemen, a country with a long history of socioeconomic challenges is now in the grip of the world's worst humanitarian crisis at this moment. An estimated 24 million--80 percent of the Yemeni population--are in need of some kind of assistance and 15.9 million people--more than half of the country's population--remain severely food insecure.

A resolution to this conflict must be found, and make no mistake, many of us on a bipartisan basis are working regularly every day to do everything within our power to restore peace in a country that has been ravaged by years of proxy war and fractious infighting. But we all recognize that lasting peace can be achieved only through a political settlement brokered by the U.N. The U.N.-led peace talks are our best bet for achieving peace in Yemen, and they appear to be at a critical juncture at this moment.

In the past, we have helped advance the negotiations by using the support we provide to the coalition as leverage over the parties to advance the negotiating process. In the past, parties have been reluctant to take on the negotiating process, but in the place we are in, we have the ability to leverage them to get there.

As this body considers ways to drive effective U.S. policy that helps end the war and relieves humanitarian suffering in Yemen, I urge Members to bear in mind that the U.N. negotiations are our best hope for achieving peace. We must do everything in our power to advance this cause, and advancing this cause does not mean turning our backs on the negotiations and on what is going on there at this time. We need to stay engaged with the limited engagement that we have had.

The peace envoys have come to this body and have testified over and over again, and they are telling us they want deeper U.S. engagement. Voting for this resolution sends a terrible message of U.S. division and lack of resolve. We need to send a signal and resolve that we are committed to playing an important role in pushing for a sustainable political settlement. As I stated, turning our backs at this critical moment is only going to empower them, and it is going to send a message to people that they don't need to negotiate right now and that they are actually making gains.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this at this time and give peace a chance through the negotiations.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source