In what senators on both sides of the aisle have called the “greatest humanitarian crisis right now,” Yemen faces threat from within and outside. The Houthi rebels-- a group of primarily Sunni Muslims-- are fighting the standing Yemeni government to gain greater autonomy within the regions dominated by the Houthi tribe. Against an already-embroiled nation, Saudi Arabia has erected a blockade that prevents those within from receiving food and other necessities. The Saudis are bombing the Houthi people, but they are doing so with the support of a United States-sponsored coalition. 

The SASS Act (Senators Against Saudi Sales Act), which narrowly passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, aims to end military support for Saudi Arabia from the United States. The bill intends to stop all weapon sales from the State and Defense Departments until the Saudis lift their blockade against the Yemeni people. The Saudi government has thirty days to decide whether to end the blockade or not. SASS will go into effect at this point if they defer. The Bill was co-authored by Senators Todd Young (R-IN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Christopher Coons (D-DE), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Its bipartisan authorship was reflected in its bipartisan support within the committee.

However, there was some worry that by cutting these ties with Saudi Arabia, the US would suffer from losses in oil sales from there. Senator Young stressed that the goal, though, was not to end the alliance with the Saudis, but rather to censure their violations of the human rights of the Yemeni people. Still though, in the short run, the authors do expect only little blowback from the Saudis. First of all, Senator Young furthered his support of the contents of the bill by explaining that due to the fact that Saudi Arabian oil is only six percent of American oil sales in total, there is little cause for concern. And secondly, this will give a greater need and therefore opportunity for the US to become even more energy-independent and create more US jobs. Senator Markey saw any losses in oil as an occasion to diminish reliance on oil at all in favor of green energy. 

Detractors of the bill, including senators on both sides of the aisle like Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), first argued that it went too far and must be more careful and moderate in its approach. Prior to the addition of a thirty-day period before the bill would go into effect, it was stipulated that it did not give Saudi Arabia, an American ally, time to pull out on their own at all. Beyond that though, there is little to no ability to tell, critics maintained, how the power balance would shift without American support, and the situation could worsen. Saudi Arabia, having lost the support of America, may have less incentive to hold back at all. Moreover, the Houthi rebels would also be unhindered and could wreak even more terror on the rest of Yemen, as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) contested. On the other hand, others disputed that the bill did not do enough. SASS fails to provide any actual aid for the Yemeni people and also stops short of any other kind of punishment like sanctions. Senator Markey finds this disagreement-- that to some it is too far and others not far enough-- to be heartening because it proves that the bill takes an agreeable approach that is both “simple and effective.”

The bill ultimately passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of sixteen to thirteen. The authors hope that this can be a precedent in American foreign policy by fighting humanitarian crises anywhere.