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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come down here and participate in this debate. It is the second one we have had in a couple of months on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding this resolution with regard to U.S. policies and participation in helping Saudi Arabia--a difficult ally but nevertheless a longstanding ally of the United States--in its conflict with regard to Yemen. There have been a number of speeches, as there were last time we debated this issue a few months ago on the Senate floor.

I do want to call out my Senate colleague from the great State of Utah, Senator Lee, who has been down here passionately arguing the issue of constitutional authority that the President may or may not have with regard to our U.S. military activities with regard to the conflict in Yemen. Senator Lee is a great constitutional scholar. He is someone who cares deeply about this issue, as do I. He is one of the leaders in the Senate on this issue. That is where he has been focused. That is why I believe he is part of this resolution that we are going to be voting on here in a few minutes on the Senate floor.

I happen to disagree with him that under the War Powers Act, the United States of America doing air refueling of Saudi aircraft--not above Yemen, not above our conflict zone, but above Saudi Arabia--would constitute hostilities. I think that is too limiting a view of that statutory prohibition in the War Powers Act. I know Senator Lee comes at this very honestly; I just happen to respectfully disagree with him.

I say to the Presiding Officer, as you have been watching this debate, the vast majority of my colleagues, all of whom I have deep respect for--Senator Durbin, Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Menendez--have all been on the floor the last hour or so making the case that if we, the United States, limit our involvement in this war in Yemen, somehow it is going to get better.

We all want the humanitarian crisis in Yemen to end. We all want that. I think all 100 U.S. Senators want that. The arguments that have been made--and by the way, they were made a couple of months ago. We debated this for a week. Nearly every U.S. Senator came down here on the floor. They have just done it again. They said: The Saudis are involved in this war in Yemen, a civil war--they are--and the involvement of the United States is actually increasing the humanitarian crisis.

These are the arguments. I have been listening. By the way, they were the arguments a couple of months ago. Senator after Senator after Senator made that argument. Well, I just wanted to provide a counter- argument. I am hoping my colleagues are listening because we should not pass this resolution. We should not pass this resolution.

One thing that all of these debates--and I listened and I watched. Certainly, we debated this a couple of months ago for almost a whole week. Do you know what word never came up from my colleagues in these debates--almost never? The word ``Iran.'' Why is that important? As the Presiding Officer probably knows, the Houthis are actually backed by the Iranians. The Iranians are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Right now, we are having this debate all about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which we want to stop--we want to stop-- but this resolution would say: OK, one of the best ways to stop it is we, the U.S. Senate, are going to tell the U.S. military that in terms of military assistance regarding Yemen, they can't work at all anymore. We are not going to allow that.

Somehow our lack of involvement is going to, A, help end the war, and B, help end the humanitarian crisis. That is the argument. That is what we are voting on right now. I happen to think that argument is wrong. I think that, but I am going to talk about some people who have testified on this very issue in the last couple of weeks who have a lot of knowledge on this issue. I am going to replay a little bit of what they said because I think it is important for other Senators to hear this. Yes, we have a lot of experts, but I am going to talk about some of the people who have talked about this recently, who I think have a little more expertise on this issue than the vast majority--I would say actually every Member of this body, with all due respect.

Let me go back to this point. Right now, as the Ayatollahs in Tehran watch this debate, they are very pleased. They are very pleased. Why? Because nobody is talking about them. Nobody is talking about them. Well, I am going to talk about them.

First of all, with regard to what started as a humanitarian crisis-- which has been going on for a long time, but this war really kicked in when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. There is not a lot of discussion about how this began, but that is how it began. Tehran has been trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, increasing capabilities to target cities in Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all part of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our traditional allies--Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab States, and, of course, Israel-- with proxy fighters in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Yet nobody is talking about Iran.

Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. U.S. humanitarian aid has totaled almost $697 million in the last 14 months. Yes, the Saudis could do a much better job, but they have invested over $1 billion in trying to end the suffering.

Iran--the country that started this war, the country that nobody on the Senate floor is even talking about--has not spent a dime to relieve the suffering. Now, of course, they have supplied weapons and ballistic missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to relieve the suffering.

(Mrs. BLACKBURN assumed the Chair.)

There is something else here that I wanted to reemphasize on the floor of the Senate. The horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi is something we have all condemned. It is very important that we do that. It is very important that we get to the bottom of it. Again, there has been a lot of discussion on that death, and any death is a problem, but let's talk about some other deaths, again, caused by the Iranians--a country we are not even talking about in this debate.

In 2005, 2006, and 2007, they started supplying Iraqi Shia militias with very sophisticated, improvised explosive devices that killed and wounded over 2,000 American soldiers--2,000 American soldiers.

Where is the outrage on that? How come no one is talking about that issue? Where are the editorials about that issue--killing our servicemembers?

The whole concept in which we have to view this issue is through the lens of the Iranian efforts to spread terrorism and to push their malign interests, including in Yemen. Yet, once again, it is all about the Saudis, and no one is talking about Iran. No one is talking about Iran.

What has happened in the last couple of days since we debated this issue 2 months ago? Well, we had an Armed Services Committee hearing. It was classified, but I am going to talk about things that I asked some of the witnesses--all of the witnesses with regard to operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia--and the answers are clearly not classified.

I asked: Will stopping U.S. support to help the Saudis end the conflict in Yemen? No. Would it prevent more civilian casualties? No. Would it give leverage to our negotiators and speed up the peace process? No. Would it support Israel's interests in the region? No. Would it support the U.S. interests in the region? No. Would it help embolden Iran with its regional malign goals? Yes.

These are the experts in the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon giving these answers. This is about 3 or 4 weeks ago. They are questions that I was asking.

Let me give you another group of experts. Just last week, we had a hearing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a hearing for the nominations of our new Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, General John Abizaid, and our new Ambassador to Iraq, a career Ambassador, Ambassador Tueller, a career Foreign Service officer. That Ambassador had just spent the last several years as Ambassador to Yemen.

I had the honor of introducing General Abizaid at his confirmation hearing just last week. He was the U.S. Central Command commander. By the way, he was the U.S. CENTCOM commander when this spread of these IEDs killing American soldiers started and began. I happen to have been a Marine Corps major, a staff officer to General Abizaid for 1\1/2\ years during this time. I had the honor of introducing him.

This is an individual who is a great American, by the way, who spent his life in the Middle East. He retired as a four-star general, speaks Arabic, has a master's degree from Harvard on Middle East studies, and was an Olmsted scholar at the University of Amman in Jordan. He knows a lot about this issue that we are debating, as does Ambassador Tueller, who had just spent the last several years as the U.S. Ambassador in Yemen. He is a career Foreign Service officer who is getting ready to go to Iraq as our Ambassador.

We have a lot of expertise here, but, with all due respect to my Senate colleagues, these gentlemen have spent their lives in the region. I am just going to quote from a couple of the questions and answers that came from General Abizaid and Ambassador Tueller on what is going on in the region.

Here is an important one. Ambassador Tueller was asked about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Remember, this is the current Ambassador to Yemen--a very, very knowledgeable career political officer, a career Foreign Service officer. He said: But almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis that overthrew the Yemeni Government, destroyed the institutions of state, and caused approximately a 40-percent decline in the GDP of the country.

Let me say that again. This is the current Ambassador to Yemen, who is getting ready to be Ambassador to Iraq. He was asked who was responsible. Right now, if you listen to the Members of the Senate, it is all the Saudis, and the Iranians have nothing to do with it.

Here is a guy who knows more than anybody, with all due respect to the people in this body, on Yemen: One of the things I often feel badly about is because we have a relationship with Saudi Arabia, and understandably, hold them to a higher account. We do focus on the consequences of Saudi actions. That is what is going on in this debate right now. But almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis that overthrew the government in 2015, destroyed the institutions of state, and caused approximately a 40-percent decline in the GDP of the country.

He continued: I see very, very little reporting, for example, of the millions and millions of mines that the Houthis have planted around the country, that in fact have caused more civilian casualties and continue to cause civilian casualties going into the future. That is a great concern, and I think the American people need to be concerned about the humanitarian issues caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis.

This is last week in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Now, you wouldn't know it in this debate because everybody is saying the whole problem is Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a problem. They are an ally. They are a difficult ally. They are a complicated ally. But one of the experts in our country on this issue says that almost 100 percent of this is the Iranian-backed Houthis who caused the humanitarian crisis.

Let me just make a couple of more points. This is General Abizaid. I see the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor, and I hope he will talk to this because this was in front of his committee. Iran and its proxies want us out of the region.

By the way, that is what this resolution would help us do. This is General Abizaid last week: They see that their agenda is served by having the United States disengaged and out to not counter their malign influence. I think it is very important that we work to ensure that the relationship with Saudi Arabia allows us to continue our influence in the region. I think, as we continue to apply pressure to them, what I hope is that we can create conditions with some of the elements to begin to abandon sort of the Houthi ideological project, a project that because it is an Iranian project really in Yemen will never bring stability to Yemen.

Again, what is going on here is that the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen are causing the humanitarian crisis. The Iranian regime wants us out of the region, including in Yemen, and the U.S. Senate is getting ready to vote on a resolution that does just that.

Again, the Ayatollahs are watching this debate, and they are very pleased. They are very pleased with what is happening.

Let's hear one more final thing that General Abizaid said, again, in this hearing just last week--a man who understands so much more about what is going on in the region than my colleagues here on the Senate floor: One thing we can't afford in Yemen, we can't afford to withdraw U.S. expertise to the coalition about how to fight.

He is talking about the Saudis.

He continued: Does anyone think that if we leave and take our assistance with regard to the Saudis, that is going to help the humanitarian situation in Yemen?

The question almost answers itself, and here is General Abizaid, the former CENTCOM commander, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just last week, saying that is not a good idea: If we want them, the Saudis, to fight right, we need to continue to give them that expertise.

That is exactly the opposite of what this Senate resolution is getting ready to do.

He continued: As far as competence in military operations conducted by the Saudi coalition, I think they have much work to do. We all agree with that. It is very important for us to continue to talk to them about the targeting system--we all agree with that--and about the way that they go about hitting the various targets, and about the professionalization of their forces, and when mistakes are made, that they do like what we do, which is to convene a board of officers, talk about the mistakes, and then take corrective action necessary to gain better and better expertise.

This is still General Abizaid, just last week: I am hopeful that there is a way to move forward with regard to easing humanitarian problems in Yemen, and that it will continue. And if I am confirmed-- which we all hope he will be very soon--will tell the Saudi Government they need to do that.

But the former commander of U.S. Central Command--and I spent 1\1/2\ years with him in the region, seeing him in action every day-- emphatically stated that if we don't work with the Saudis in terms of military assistance, it is going to get worse.

The current Ambassador to Yemen testified last week that almost 100 percent of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is caused by the Houthi rebels backed by the Iranians. Yet, if you listen to the debate today and if you listen to the debate 3 months ago on the floor of the Senate, almost nobody even talks about Iran.

So given that the experts believe this strongly, given that they have more knowledge--and they are not political; one is a career four-star general, and one is a career Foreign Service officer--and given that they think this is a really bad idea to vote for this resolution, I am not sure how it advances American interests. I am not sure how it advances humanitarian interests in Yemen, which we all want to advance. It certainly will not advance the peace process, which we all want to move forward.

The only entity in the Middle East that will be cheering a resolution in support of American withdrawal with regard to the Saudis is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the region, and that is Iran. That is not just me saying it. That is literally some of the most prominent experts in the country who have spent their lives focused on these issues.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution that we are going to take up here very soon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source