[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.
____________________