[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 177 (Thursday, October 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5201-S5205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES 44

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, so much senseless violence, so much death 
and destruction, shouldn't we at least avoid wars of choice? Shouldn't 
we at least not go looking for trouble in every corner of the planet?
  With the Middle East on fire, what sense does it make to have over 
1,000 troops in Niger? Does it make sense to station over 1,000 troops 
in a country ruled by a military junta? Does it make sense to scour the 
back roads of Africa droning potential villains?
  Today, the Senate will debate and vote on whether U.S. troops should 
remain engaged in hostilities in Niger. It should not go unnoticed that 
Congress never voted to send troops to Niger in the first place.
  Presidents of both parties have used the September 11, 2001, 
authorization to use military force to justify wars in dozens of 
countries from Afghanistan to Libya, to Syria, to Somalia, to Yemen. 
Niger is but 1 of over 20 countries that the U.S. conducts military 
operations in, supposedly justified by the 9/11 authorization to use 
military force.
  The impetus for this War Powers Resolution in 2001 has nothing to do 
with the situation of Africa today. This War Powers Resolution today, 
though, is related to the July 26 coup in which members of Niger's 
Presidential Guard, including some officers who were trained in the 
United States, removed the democratically elected President, Mohammed 
Bazoum, from power.
  Now, the surrounding states around Niger are unhappy with this. The 
Economic Community of West African States is an organization of 15 
countries. They have declared their intention to intervene militarily 
in Niger if President Bazoum is not restored to power.
  We are in the middle of a potential war, with 1,100 troops in Niger, 
where a democratically elected President has been deposed, and they are 
being ruled by a military junta and still our troops are there.
  In September, two other countries--Mali and Burkina Faso--that have 
experienced their own armed coups in recent years, signed a mutual 
defense pact to defend the military junta in Niger.
  Niger's new leaders have put its military on maximum alert, citing an 
increased risk of attack. For its part, the Economic Community of West 
African States--15 countries--has imposed sanctions, instituted a no-
fly zone, and closed border crossings. Recent reports indicate that 
Nigerian troops have been deployed along the border of the country 
Benin.
  The Sahel is a powder keg, and we have over 1,000 military troops and 
personnel sitting in the middle of it. The Middle East is on fire, and 
yet we have 1,100 troops sitting in the middle of a potential war that 
we could be drug into. American forces face a very real

[[Page S5202]]

risk of being caught in the crossfire of a regional African war. That 
is all we need, is another war.
  What are we doing in Niger? As I mentioned earlier, Congress never 
voted to send troops there. Congress never authorized the use of 
military force. Yet, on multiple occasions, U.S. forces in Niger have 
engaged in firefights with hostile groups. Sadly, American lives have 
already been lost.
  My colleagues may recall that on October 4, 2017, four U.S. 
soldiers--SFC Jeremiah Johnson, SSG Bryan Black, SSG Dustin Wright, and 
SGT La David Johnson--were ambushed and killed while on a mission near 
the village of Tongo Tongo, Niger. This tragic incident was the largest 
loss of life for U.S. forces in Africa since the 1993 Black Hawk down 
incident.
  At the time, the New York Times reported in a piece called ``An 
Endless War'' that two senior U.S. Senators, a Republican and a 
Democrat--both of whom still serve in this body--were surprised to 
learn that the United States even had troops in Niger. This is how 
distant we have become from controlling our intervention in war--that 
people in the body, in the upper body of the Congress, don't even know 
we have troops in certain countries. We lose soldiers in countries, and 
nobody even knew we were there. There has been no vote of Congress. 
There has been no support of the people. This is being done by an 
administration--the previous administration, the one previous to that, 
and the current administration.
  These Senators were surprised because Congress has abdicated its 
constitutional war powers to the executive branch. These Senators were 
surprised because this institute is content to allow the President to 
sidestep the Constitution and unilaterally deploy U.S. forces anywhere 
in the world, anytime, for any reason, by citing a virtually limitless 
interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF.
  The country of Niger--the junta, the coup, the discord in Niger--has 
nothing to do with the attack on 9/11/2001. This attack prompted 
Congress to authorize war against those who attacked us on 9/11. It was 
passed in the days following the tragic events. The AUMF was narrowly 
tailored to bring justice to those responsible for attacking us on 9/
11, but an ever-aggrandizing executive deliberately misinterprets--both 
Republican executives and Democrat executives deliberately misinterpret 
this AUMF as a limitless document to empower the President to go to war 
everywhere, all the time, forever.
  Administrations of both parties cite this 2001 authorization for use 
of military force to continue U.S. military operations against various 
groups in 20 different countries. The majority of these countries--I 
would say all of these countries--had absolutely nothing to do with 9/
11. Many of the groups we are targeting have no connection to 9/11. 
Many of them didn't exist in 2001, and many of their members weren't 
even born in 2001. Using an AUMF from 22 years ago--an authorization to 
get the people who attacked us on 9/11--to justify a war in Niger is a 
ridiculous notion and should be rejected out of hand.
  Deferring the decision as to when, where, and why our country goes to 
war is a dereliction of duty. Think about it. Our young men and women 
whom we send into harm's way who may give up their lives anywhere 
around the world--don't they deserve a debate? Don't they deserve a 
vote? Don't the 1,100 troops in Niger deserve that we debate on the 
floor of the Senate whether they should be there or not? God forbid 
they are your sons or your daughters, and they lose their lives in a 
remote corner of Africa, and there has never been one debate on the 
floor over whether or not we should even be there.

  The Middle East is on fire, and we have 1,100 troops in Africa. These 
military interventions have been carried out across Africa, across the 
Middle East, and they have cost thousands of lives, trillions of 
dollars, and have made us less safe and less prosperous. In many cases, 
our interventions have been counterproductive, destabilizing, and have 
helped to create the conditions for Islamic extremism to prosper.
  Does anybody remember our intervention in Libya? I know many 
policymakers in this city think that is ancient history, but that 
Obama-led offensive helped to destroy the country of Libya. The U.S.-
led coalition toppled the government of Muammar Qadhafi, killed 
hundreds of civilians, fomented anarchy which still exists today 
throughout the country of Libya, and opened the floodgates for 
widespread extremist terrorism to spread throughout the region.
  If you look objectively, is there more or less terrorism in Libya 
than before we got rid of Qadhafi, before we intervened and the French 
and all of the countries intervened? There is more terrorism now. It is 
more of a problem. Libyans today are unambiguously worse off than 
before the intervention, than before the war.
  In 2010, the U.N. Human Development Index ranked Libya 53rd in the 
world and 1st in Africa. This year, after the war, after 10 years of 
chaos, after 10 years of anarchy, Libya ranks near the bottom of all 
countries. They are 104th in the world. The country is a mess. It is 
destroyed. It has two governments. It has become a foundation for 
extremism throughout Africa.
  We need to think about our interventions before they occur.
  In 2010, the World Bank assessed Libya's per capita GDP as $11,600. 
Ten years later, the per capita GDP is almost half of that--$5,910.
  The U.N. Human Rights Office reports that the execution and torture 
of civilians in Libya happen on a regular occurrence. The U.N. has also 
identified the existence of open slave markets, where migrants and 
refugees transiting Libya are bought and sold as slaves. Thank goodness 
the developed world came in to remove the government of Libya and 
civilize the country that is now a huge mess and a huge sore.
  The disasters the Obama administration helped unleash in Libya have 
had longlasting consequences in the entire region. Libyan arms, 
including heavy weaponry such as anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air 
missiles, have been traced to criminals and terrorists across the 
region.
  So we destroyed any sense of stability in Libya; the chaos spread 
throughout; and now we say: Oh, now we need to kill all the people who 
are spreading throughout the region who came from Libya.
  We have traced their weapons to terrorists in Niger, in Mali, in 
Tunisia, in Syria, and in Algeria. Tragically, they are now showing up 
in Gaza. Some of the weapons in Gaza being launched against Israel are 
weapons that came out of the war in Libya.
  The United States now uses Niger as a drone base to kill and try to 
clean up the mess that the United States and others created in Libya. 
The war in Libya that we, the French, and other countries participated 
in that left a power vacuum, that left a mess, spilled terrorists over 
into other countries. So what do we do? We create a drone base in Niger 
to kill these people. What happens when you kill the wrong people? What 
happens when the drone lands on a wedding, and 22 innocent people die 
at a wedding? What do you think happens to their relatives? How many 
terrorists are created for every innocent civilian killed?
  You only have to think back to Afghanistan, the mess of 
leaving Afghanistan. I was for leaving Afghanistan, but it was a 
terrible military blunder. When we did, the executive branch, to save 
face--what did they do? They droned somebody. They just droned the 
wrong person. They droned a humanitarian aid worker and a bunch of 
kids. What do you think that does for terrorism? When you drone an aid 
worker and their kids, do you think you get more terrorism? Hell yes, 
you do. You get 10 more terrorists for every civilian you kill.

  There is no reason in the world we should be in the heart of Africa 
with drones, killing people.
  Unfortunately, it is rarely asked if our interminable military 
interventions create the very terrorists we seek to destroy. It is a 
question this body needs to answer.
  When four of our soldiers were killed in Niger, many believed they 
were on a mission to track down a person named Doundou Chefou. 
According to the previous Nigerian Government, Doundou Chefou is a 
terrorist, but before he took up arms, he was a cattle herder of the 
Fulani Tribe who had no hatred for the Nigerian Government or the U.S. 
Government. Members of a rival Tribe,

[[Page S5203]]

the Tuareg Tribe, became mercenaries for Qadhafi. Once Libya was 
destroyed, guess what. They decided to come back to Niger. They were 
attacking the cattle herder, Chefou.
  These are local disputes that have to do with armed mercenaries 
coming from Libya into Niger. So what do we do? We get involved in 
that, and tragically American lives were lost getting involved in 
something when maybe our country never should have been there to begin 
with.
  After Qadhafi was deposed, the mercenaries from Libya returned home 
to Niger, but they were now armed with weapons of war. They turned 
these arms on the Fulani Tribe to pillage their cattle. This was a 
dispute over thieves taking people's cattle. Do you think that 
necessitates a predator drone to be dropped on these people? Do you 
think that somehow we are eliminating terrorism by droning people 
involved in a cattle dispute? Although it may not be justified, should 
we be surprised that Chefou turned to people who happened to be 
Islamist for guns and training?
  Do the proponents of Western military intervention not understand 
that we may be creating the terrorists we seek to destroy? Do we not 
see the folly of our adventurism that transforms cattle herders into 
jihadists?
  U.S. troops have been stationed in Niger since at least 2013. There 
has been no vote. The Constitution is clear: We do not fight wars 
without the approval of Congress. Yet, for a decade, we have had troops 
over there. Both parties, Republican and Democrat, gradually increased 
and gradually increased. We drone people. We sometimes drone parents. 
Sometimes we drone people at a wedding. Ten years later, our presence 
in Niger has multiplied, and not once has this body debated the merits 
of our mission there, let alone authorized the use of military force.
  We will debate it today not because they are interested in the 
subject, not because they wish to put an imprimatur on war, not because 
they think they have any responsibility to our soldiers or any 
responsibility to the people in Africa whether we should be there; we 
will debate it today because I forced them to debate it. This is a 
privileged motion, and they can't stop me. This debate over whether or 
not there should be a war in Africa--a war in Niger--or whether any of 
our troops should be there is only because I forced them to debate 
this. They want nothing to do with this. In fact, they would just as 
soon rely on a resolution from 2001. They want nothing to do with this. 
They want no responsibility. They want to wash their hands of this. 
Then one day, when they wake up and discover that four soldiers have 
died in a country they didn't even know we were involved with, they 
say: Not my problem. That is a Presidential thing.
  That is not what the Constitution intended. The Constitution intended 
that we would be involved and that the loss of life and the sending of 
our troops overseas would be our responsibility and that we would be 
reticent to do it. Instead, we do nothing; we turn the other way. And 
when our soldiers die in a heroic fashion, fighting for a cause where 
the symbolism of the cause is just, there has been no debate. They say: 
Oh, we voted on that before you were born. You were born long after 
2001, but somebody, somewhere, once upon a time, voted for a resolution 
in 2001, and that is good enough. We wash our hands.
  Well, today, we will vote. This will put the Senate on record, and 
they will be responsible for their vote. Will they vote to end our 
presence in a country that is now run by a military coup? a country 
where there is threatened war from all sides? Will we enter into a war 
that is clearly a war of choice or will we say: No. Maybe it is time to 
get the heck out of there, to get the heck out of the middle of a war.
  Either way, I will put them on record today--but not because they 
want to but because they are forced to debate this issue because I 
bring it to the floor.
  We have learned that the soldiers who perished tragically in 2017 in 
Niger were on a mission authorized by section 127e of title 10 of the 
United States Code. What is that? It is a piece of the law that 
unfortunately has been put forward by the legislature to give the 
President the power to do whatever he wants up to $100 million, the 
authority to expend up to $100 million during a fiscal year to 
``provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or 
individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating authorized ongoing 
military operations.''
  Those are a lot of fancy words to say the President can do anything 
he wants anywhere in the world because we gave him this power. But 
there is something in the Constitution that says we cannot delegate our 
power. The Constitution doesn't allow the legislature to delegate their 
power to the Executive.
  We can't give up our warmaking power. This is unconstitutional. You 
cannot allow just little wars to happen, up to $100 million per year, 
without any vote. That is giving up the authority the Constitution gave 
to us. It is clearly unconstitutional and should be repealed.
  In short, this section of legal code provides the Pentagon unilateral 
authority to wage secret wars anywhere in the world without any 
oversight by Congress and even less public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the 
loss of four of our soldiers illuminates the fact that our troops who 
are operating under this authority are also in harm's way.
  Earlier this month, the Biden administration finally formally 
declared that a military coup took place in Niger. Once that 
declaration was made, the United States was statutorily required to 
suspend all foreign and military assistance. You would think that would 
include having 1,000 troops there.
  A senior administration official stated to CNN that the 
counterterrorism operations will remain paused, as will all U.S. 
training activities to build the capacity of the Nigerian forces.
  It seems as if our troops have no mission. Someone should explain why 
we are still leaving them in the middle of a war. French President 
Emmanuel Macron recently announced that France will end its military 
presence in Niger and bring some 1,500 soldiers home. We should also 
bring our 1,000 troops home.
  To commit America's military to fight wars on behalf of the Nation is 
the most consequential and humbling responsibility that Congress is 
entrusted with. Can we not, at the very least, muster the courage to 
have a debate? If America's interest in Niger is of such vital 
importance that we ask our young men to fight and potentially pay the 
ultimate sacrifice to defend it, we at least owe our soldiers a debate 
in Congress--not, ``Your grandparents debated this,'' ``Your parents 
debated this,'' or, ``Another generation debated this,'' but that we 
are willing to debate, here and now, whether or not we should be at war 
in Niger.
  A ``yes'' vote on my resolution gives each of us an opportunity to go 
on record and tell our constituents that we will no longer stand idly 
by as the President sends their sons and daughters into harm's way to 
fight wars, with no clear objective, with no definition of victory, 
with no exit strategy, and with no constitutional authorization.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote yes to take America out of 
hostilities in Niger.


                          Motion to Discharge

  Mr. President, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 44.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The clerk will report the motion 
to discharge.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations, S.J. Res. 44, directing the removal of United 
     States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Niger 
     that have not been authorized by Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my friend's motion 
to discharge this from our committee.
  Let me start where he left off. He is asking that we remove our 
troops from hostilities in Niger. Let me say this as clearly as I can: 
We have no troops involved in hostilities in Niger. If we did, this 
would be a big deal and this place would be full and we would be 
talking about combat operations. We do not have that.
  The United States is not involved in combat operations in Niger. We 
do conduct focused intelligence operations to protect our troops in the 
region as well as our partners and allies and, most importantly, to 
monitor threats.

[[Page S5204]]

  It is inaccurate to equate routine security assistance in 
counterterrorism operations and monitoring with involvement in 
hostilities. This incorrect assumption threatens U.S. security 
assistance around the globe.
  A swift U.S. withdrawal from Niger, as proposed in this resolution, 
would weaken our regional reconnaissance efforts to monitor terrorist 
activities, which, of course, are in the national security interests of 
the United States of America and all American citizens. It would also 
leave the door open for Russia to come in and take over our facilities.
  In early 2023, AFRICOM Commander Gen. Michael Langley told Congress 
that ``Africa is the epicenter of international terrorism,'' an 
understatement, at best, and something we all knew. Since then, the 
threat has nothing but grown against U.S. interests and partners in the 
Sahel. As it has grown, Iran and the Wagner Group, backed by the 
Kremlin, seek to exploit Sahel's weakness by aligning with military 
juntas.
  Despite the recent coup in Niger weakening the country's security, 
invoking U.S. restrictions on aid, Niger remains vital for Western 
counterterrorism in the Sahel and for observation purposes.
  America cannot be the policemen of the world, but that does not mean 
we should not have observation posts, we should not do 
counterintelligence and national security monitoring, and it doesn't 
mean that we shouldn't do intelligence operations.
  With all due respect to my friend, I know that this is well-
intentioned, but the result would be very negative for U.S. national 
security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I, too, also oppose this motion for the 
reasons that Senator Risch outlined.
  Our presence there are not troops in hostility. To the contrary. We 
have been asked. Our African partners have asked for our support, and 
our European allies are looking for us to stand firm.
  This is a situation where our troops are welcomed in order to prevent 
the terrorist activities that are taking place in that part of Africa.
  We had a committee hearing on the Sahel this week. You saw the 
circumstances in this part of Africa. It is dangerous there. The U.S. 
presence is helping save lives and to contain terrorism. Our partners 
in Africa want us there to deal with that threat. Now is not the time 
to signal that we are abandoning them. This is not the time to draw 
down our military presence in Niger, which could directly impact their 
security.
  Now is not the time for the United States to send a message that we 
cannot be relied upon. Think about what this says to our partners if we 
were to pull out. Think about what it says to our enemies. Russia 
already has a foothold in Africa, including right next door in Mali. 
Their presence has been absolutely devastating for the people of the 
countries where it operates.
  Russia's affiliated forces have committed horrific human rights 
atrocities. Just in Mali, the Wagner mercenaries and multiple armed 
forces are believed to have massacred 500 people in March of 2022. That 
is why our presence is so valuable and so important to that region. We 
do not give enough attention to that part of the world. We certainly 
don't want to signal that we are abandoning that part of the world. If 
we do that, we leave a vacuum. If we leave a vacuum, Russia will fill 
it; the Wagner mercenaries will fill it.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the opponents of the resolution have stated 
here today on the floor that no troops are involved in combat in Niger. 
I think the families of the four soldiers who died over there would be 
surprised to find out that their loved ones who gave their lives were 
not involved in combat. What an insult.
  They would also be surprised--or people would be surprised--to find 
out that killing someone with a drone is not combat. One of the main 
bases we have in Niger is a drone base for killing people. So if it is 
not combat to kill people with a drone and it is not combat to have 
four soldiers die, I am not sure what combat is. But this is clearly 
combat. It is clearly wrong. It clearly has not been authorized. It 
should not be authorized.
  The argument has also been made by opponents of this resolution that 
they want us there; that all of Africa is in open arms and wants us 
there. Well, guess what, the people who rule the country of Niger 
don't. They asked the French to leave, and the French are leaving. All 
1,500 troops are leaving. They have asked us to leave. Maybe we should 
take their advice.
  It is not a democratically elected government. So the military junta 
that took over and put the President in jail wants us to leave. The 
people who want us to stay are in other countries who have threatened 
war with Niger for imprisoning the President. There is a conflict. 
There have been 17 military coups in this part of the world. This part 
of Africa, in the last decade, has had 17 coups and, guess what, 11 of 
the coups are led by people trained in the United States.
  This is a policy that is not working. We think it is a benign policy. 
It is a terrible policy. We are bringing them here, training them; they 
are going over and deposing the democratically elected President. Don't 
be fooled. There is combat there. Four of our soldiers have died, and 
it is an insult to their families to say it is not combat.
  They don't want us; the juntas asked us to leave; and I would support 
this resolution, which says we need to bring our troops home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to correct the record. It is 
correct that they asked the French to leave, but they want America's 
presence there. They have not asked America and its troops to leave. 
That is why it is not hostilities. We are there at their invitation, 
not as a hostile force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, very briefly to respond to my good friend 
from Kentucky, first of all, we are not conducting drone strikes out of 
Niger. We have not. We are not. We will not.
  As far as the four troops who were killed in 2017, the good Senator 
knows that was well investigated; it was not during combat operations 
that they were killed that U.S. troops were involved in. It was a one-
off that certainly was accidental. We are not engaged in hostilities or 
combat in Niger.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, opponents of this resolution say we are not 
involved in combat and that drones aren't killing people. Guess what. 
All those records are secretive. They are all classified and put away 
from the American people. We have no idea what they are doing with 
drones. I tend to doubt it, and I do think drones have killed people.
  I also think that we are using our ability to surveil and oversee the 
region to give them targets for their own drones. So, no, we are 
involved.
  When they say that the people of Niger want us to stay, are they 
talking about the President who is in jail? The guy who was elected is 
in jail. Are they now saying it is justified to stay because a bunch of 
thugs who took over the government by military force want us to stay? 
What a crazy notion.
  You are here on the floor today supporting the junta. You will 
support whatever it takes to stay there. You don't care whether it is a 
democratically elected government or a junta, but it is a mess. The 
surrounding countries support the President, who is in jail--some of 
them. Two or three of them who have had juntas themselves support the 
junta. It is a mess. The French are leaving because it is a mess.
  There is no clear mission. Our mission was to train their troops. Are 
you going to train the junta's troops?
  They have been declared a coup. Even the Biden administration has 
declared them a coup, and we are cutting off funding, but we are going 
to leave troops in the middle of a war. If they are killed by a 
terrorist attack, if hundreds of our soldiers are killed as they were 
in Beirut, I think people will rue the day you put our soldiers in the 
middle of a thankless situation, with no mission, no plan, and no 
approval by Congress.
  I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

[[Page S5205]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4366

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that there 
be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each rollcall vote 
during the consideration of H.R. 4366.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would ask consent that the vote 
scheduled for 11:30 begin immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that we 
proceed to the roll call vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
discharge.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the 
Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 11, nays 86, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--11

     Braun
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Marshall
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Vance
     Welch

                                NAYS--86

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     King
     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________