Jim Inhofe: “This has been the center of a lot of discussion, and it is a little confusing. I think there are a lot of things that…”

“This has been the center of a lot of discussion, and it is a little confusing. I think there are a lot of things that everyone in here agrees with, but how we are going to express ourselves has to come down to all possibilities of the options that are there. I want to start off by saying that I oppose the Sanders-Lee provision. I think the resolution would have us find that since March of 2015, members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been introduced into hostilities in Yemen between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis, including providing to the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and midflight aerial refueling. If enacted, Lee-Sanders could ultimately pull all U.S. support from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don't see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. The truth is that with the exception of the defense strike in October 2016, the U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. The limited military support and intelligence sharing being provided by the United States to the Saudi-led coalition does not involve the introduction of U.S. Forces into hostilities, nor is the U.S.…”