Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I object.

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, there is a certain amount of irony in seeing Republicans come to the floor proposing mandates on business to Republicans picking winners and losers. Mandating that all cars have AM radio is antithetical to any notion of limited government and has nothing to do with the debate over free speech. The debate over free speech is whether or not government can place limitations on speech. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a right to have your opinion in the New York Times or whether you get to listen to radio. It really has nothing to do with the debate over free speech. The debate over free speech, as listed in the First Amendment, is that government shall pass no law. It has nothing do with forcing your manufacturers to have AM radio. This legislation attempts to insert Congress's judgment into a question best decided by American consumers. This isn't about consumers turning on or off the radio; this is about consumers deciding which car they want to buy, what they want to pay for it, and what they want as the extras in the car. American families are already struggling, and this bill is yet another private sector mandate that would cost car buyers even more money. This bill mandates that AM radio be included in vehicles manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or simply shipped in interstate commerce. What happens when government places mandates on the private marketplace? Consumers pay more. To provide AM radio in electric cars, manufacturers must include equipment to counteract the electromagnetic interference between the battery and the AM radio waves. The equipment necessary to fix this problem, at a minimum, costs several hundred dollars per vehicle. According to the Consumer Technology Association, even a small automotive production line would incur costs above $15 million to comply with this mandate. The sponsors of this legislation know this bill will increase costs for car buyers. That is why they included a provision that also prohibits carmakers from charging a fee or an additional payment for access to AM broadcast stations. So it is not just a mandate that you have to have AM; it is a mandate that you can't charge for AM radio. It is more than one mandate on car manufacturers, and it will add to the cost of the car. Well, that sure is an interesting thought. They think they are going to prevent this by saying that the car manufacturer can't charge for AM radio, but people will still pay more for their cars. If the mandate is imposed, one way or another, people will pay for this cost. It just doesn't disappear. When angry consumers then complain about the ever-increasing cost of cars, the proponents of this bill will inevitably shrug their shoulders and say: Don't blame us. We passed a bill to force car companies to incur an additional cost, and then we told them they weren't allowed to charge you, but they did anyway. When the government imposes costs on manufacturers, the government inevitably imposes costs on the consumers. No bill can shield consumers from the higher costs imposed by government. And Congress already imposes significant costs on all taxpayers by forcing the many to subsidize the few who own electric cars. Electric car vehicles make up a small but growing percentage of vehicles on the road. They comprise about 2 percent of all vehicles, and nearly 6 percent of the vehicles sold last year were electric. Most of these electric cars are subsidized by the taxpayer. If you want to get to the root of this problem, if you don't want government subsidizing something that bans your favorite form of entertainment, quit subsidizing them. So I have a great deal of sympathy for AM radio. I love AM radio, but I don't want to give up on our philosophy and just say: Well, because it is something we like, we are going to mandate it. If you want to get to the root of the problem, quit subsidizing the car manufacturers, quit subsidizing electric cars if they are going to disfavor our speech. That is a way of empowering speech and promoting speech that doesn't involve giving up on our principles that mandates on business are not a good idea. The electrical vehicle tax credit forces all of us to subsidize the small number of electrical car owners. This subsidy, by incentivizing the purchase of electrical cars, does threaten AM radio. If you want to really get rid of this, quit subsidizing electric cars. So instead of attacking the crux of the problem here though, this legislation adds a government mandate to force car manufacturers to install AM radios and increase the price of cars. Do we seriously not see the folly of this exercise, particularly from a conservative point of view? Let me be perfectly clear. Government intervention in the economy cannot be the solution to problems caused by government intervention in the economy. We have this problem because government subsidizes these electric cars. We are going to fix it by then mandating some other government rule. One mandate does not cancel out another and will not make the situation better. At some point, we have to remember that we are Members of Congress, not the central planners of the automobile industry. With that in mind, I offer a solution to get the government's foot off the neck of taxpayers. Let's let the free market decide where consumers can operate. Let's let people without subsidies, without coercions, without the government getting involved, let's let them pick. Do you want a car with AM radio or do you want an electric car without an AM radio, but let's don't subsidize one or the other. Rather than mandate the installation of AM radio, let's stop subsidizing the purchase of electrical cars and the removal of AM radio. Let's let the consumers tell the manufacturers, through hundreds of transactions a day, what their preferences are. So I ask unanimous consent to strike the mandate imposed by this legislation and empower car buyers by modifying the request forward to replace the text with my language that would repeal the electric vehicle car tax. So I would ask that the Senator modify his request and that the Paul substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, to continue spending money at the current levels will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of our great Nation. My amendment, in order to stave off such a terrible fiscal outcome, would cut approximately 1 percent of our budgetary spending and help to put us on the path toward fiscal responsibility. In June of this year, the national debt surpassed $32 trillion. Then, in September, the national debt surpassed $33 trillion. You heard that right. It took Congress 90 short days to add $1 trillion in debt. Unless we change course, the debt will consume us. America's future as a nation is not threatened from without but from within. Our mounting debt will ultimately force a day of reckoning. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that we will add an average of $2 trillion in debt every year for the next decade. Using Congressional Budget Office projections, the U.S. Government will add over $5 billion to its debt pile every single day for the next 10 years. We borrow over $176 million every hour. We borrow $3 million every minute, and we borrow $50,000 every second. It is only a matter of time before the world wakes up and refuses to buy our debt. This reckless level of borrowing and spending is patently unsustainable. The ever-increasing heights of our debt mean a weak economy, high inflation, and confiscatory tax rates. In other words, today's spending threatens tomorrow's prosperity. According to William McBride of the Tax Foundation, ``outside of the pandemic years, this year's federal deficit is the highest in U.S. history.'' McBride continues: Figures from the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal year 2023 indicate that the federal deficit grew by about $2 trillion. McBride also states that ``while tax revenue has increased 28 percent since the prepandemic year of 2019, spending has increased about 46 percent and the deficit has more than doubled. Annual deficits are headed toward [even] $3 trillion'' a year if we don't wake up and do something about it. McBride concludes: In sum, the federal budget continues on a perilous course. . . . Now would be a good time for our political leaders to present a coherent plan for dealing with the debt problem before it becomes an urgent crisis. That is why I am here on the floor today. Americans are starved for a voice of fiscal sanity. Americans understand far better than the Nation's elites that time is running out. Americans will pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to every cause, every line item, every pinstripe lobbyist. We will pay more to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes. We will pay more for groceries because of high levels of inflation that will destroy our purchasing power. And we will find a generation of kids who won't leave their parents' homes because businesses cannot afford to hire them. It doesn't have to be this way. America can once again be a rising nation, and we can take that first step toward a brighter future today. My amendment will make across-the-board reductions except for defense and veterans' benefits. Additionally, the amendment would cut $30 billion from the Biden administration's attempt to sic the IRS on American taxpayers to squeeze even more money out of those who earned their hard-earned dollars. All told, my amendment would save taxpayers $60 billion, which is only about 1 percent of all budgetary spending. It is a small and modest reduction in spending, but it is a step in the right direction. This is not the first time I have offered an amendment to save the taxpayers money. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have, time and time again, offered balanced budgets and plans that would shave pennies--mere pennies--from every budgetary program to restore our fiscal health, and, every time, these proposals are rejected by the Senate. The result of failing to act then is that, today, we now vote in the shadow of a mountain of debt. It is time that we rise up. Rise up and tell your Members of Congress that enough is enough. It is time to take a stand while the restoration of American prosperity is still within our grasp. By the time this continuing resolution expires, the people who ask for your vote next year will have added another $1 trillion to the debt. It is time to take a stand. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and call up amendment No. 1366 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I yield back my time, and I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we are here once again faced with the proposal to ban TikTok and to forbid millions of Americans from expressing their opinion. This is not a subject that we should entertain lightly. If there is a better national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation, I have not heard of it. Banning TikTok, a social media app used by 150 million Americans, primarily young Americans, is a recipe for electoral disaster for Republicans. This GOP strategy comes just after an election year in which a national survey indicated that 71 percent of young women and 53 percent of young men voted for the Democrat candidate for Congress. Now, admittedly, many Democrats have also joined Republicans in calling for this ban, but like most issues, the blame tends to stick to Republicans more. The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. So without a hint of irony, many of these same ``conservatives'' now agitate to censor viewpoints they don't like. So on the one hand, Republicans complain about censorship, while with the other hand, these same Republicans advocate to censor social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese. The concern over TikTok seems to be over what the social media app might do. Propagating hysteria and fear of subtle communist subversion from the People's Republic of China through a social media app in the 21st century, is similar or akin to basically McCarthyist paranoia. Today, in a move that Chairman Mao himself would approve, the Senate considers banning a platform because it seems one Member doesn't approve of how it handled content about the war between Israel and Hamas. Just this week, the Senator from Missouri wrote to Secretary Yellen: While data security issues are paramount, less often discussed is TikTok's power to radically distort the world- picture that America's young people encounter. The Senator from Missouri wants to censor TikTok users who are biased against Israel. The Senator from Missouri wants to ban the speech of young TikTok users he disagrees with. Sounds more like a Chinese solution than an American one. The Chinese solution to combating speech those in power do not like is to ban it. In fact, TikTok is banned in China. So is YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. There is an app similar to TikTok called Douyin that operates in China, but it is heavily censored. Try to search for ``Tiananmen 1989'' on Douyin, and nothing will come up. The American solution, with the high value that our country places on the free exchange of ideas, is to counter flawed ideas--flawed ideas-- or falsities with more speech and better arguments that persuade and reveal the truth. Do we really want to emulate China's speech bans? Do we really want to intrude into the lives of Americans and deprive them of their First Amendment right to receive and consider information? The ham-fisted ban under consideration today empowers the government to determine what Americans are allowed to see, hear, and contemplate. The headline of an opinion piece recently by John Tamny says it all: ``Nauseating Harassment of TikTok Presumes Americans Will Be Saved From Chinese Authoritarianism If U.S. Politicians Act Like Chinese Authoritarians.'' A ban on TikTok is what they do in China. You are worried about Chinese communism and Chinese authoritarianism, and you want to ban speech in our country? It is inconsistent with our very American primary principles. TikTok must be banned, the censors say, because they are owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Government. In actuality, TikTok is owned by international investors and two Chinese software engineers who designed the app. Does TikTok do the Chinese Government's bidding? Well, go to the app and search for Falun Gong, the anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in China. Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's independence, criticism of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. These videos are all over TikTok that are critical of Chinese positions. That is why TikTok is banned in China. TikTok is banned in China, but you want to ban it in the United States. We are going to become like the Chinese to prevent the Chinese from taking over our country? As Drs. Mueller and Farhat of Georgia Tech write, ``If nationalist fears about Chinese influence operations lead to a departure from American constitutional principles supporting free and open political discourse, we will have succeeded in undermining our [very] system of government more effectively than any Chinese propaganda could ever do.'' We will be doing what the Chinese want. If you are worried about becoming Chinese communists, you will now be emulating them by banning speech. To those who were worried that the Chinese Government might somehow have access to millions of American teenagers' info, realize that all social media, regardless of whether their ownership is foreign or domestic, sucks up all your personal data, and this is what people provide voluntarily. And, people, if you don't want your information--don't join these groups. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next? Arguably, several domestic apps censor conservatives more. I know because I have been censored and banned by American companies. I have got no love lost with any of these companies. I have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms that cancel conservatives, but I am not in favor of banning them or forcing them to accept my opinion. They are private companies. They have speech rights. I have speech rights, but I don't have the right to force them or to ban them if they don't post my stuff. If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them. But don't think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. The First Amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that everybody likes or everybody accepts. The First Amendment exists to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous, videos of teenagers dancing or the President of the U.S. Government banning speech. For me, it is an easy answer. I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers, even, if need be, from Members of my own party. I object.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the bill before us to ban TikTok is clearly infringement of the First Amendment. It would ban 150 million people who regularly post on TikTok from expressing themselves. It is without question speech. These folks, the 150 million users of TikTok, would have standing in court to sue over infringement of their speech. This isn't about who was advocating for this or that in the Middle East or in Israel or in the Hamas situation. The Supreme Court has looked at speech over time, and there is some speech that is not protected. But in Europe, they have gone one step further, in the sense that they ban all kinds of speech in Europe. You have certain opinions that can't be expressed. We have never done that in our country. You can have a foul, despicable opinion in our country, and we counter it with better ideas. We counter it with better speech. It is very, very dangerous to the primary principles of our founding, of our government, of our Bill of Rights, of the Bill of Right that is listed first, and that is freedom of speech. And my hope is that this will not be seen as a serious proposal and will be rejected.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to honor and pay tribute to one of the most patriotic and dedicated Kentuckians I have had the pleasure of knowing, Mrs. Bobette Franklin. A Bowling Green, KY, native, Bobette is a graduate of Western Kentucky University. She married Steve Franklin, and they made their home in Bowling Green. They have been married for 24 years and have a son, Noah, who is their pride and joy. Upon being elected to office in 2010, I set out to hire a director of constituent services for my State office in Bowling Green. I asked for recommendations for the very best and received one clear answer from many: Bobette Franklin. Bobette began her congressional career in constituent services with Congressman Ron Lewis and, upon his retirement, continued her career with Congressman Brett Guthrie. I was thrilled when Bobette accepted my offer to lead my constituent services operation. My constituent services team is second to none and would not be known for their stellar reputation throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky without Bobette's leadership. Anyone who knows Bobette knows she takes tremendous pride in her work and strives to excel in all aspects of her life. Her commitment to excellence and attention to detail is evident in every interaction she has with Kentuckians who need assistance, no matter the size or scope of the request. During Bobette's tenure in my office, she has overseen more than 20,000 constituent service cases, which has directly impacted thousands of Kentuckians and people across the Nation. While Bobette has served Kentuckians in numerous ways, her outstanding reputation is most evident through her outreach and advocacy for veterans. Bobette has received numerous awards from the veteran community. In 2016, the Southern Kentucky Veterans Council presented her with its Distinguished Service Award for over 20 years of devoted service assisting veterans. And earlier this year, the Department of Defense Joint Executive Council of Veterans presented her with an award in recognition of her work for veterans and their families across Kentucky. After 29 years of Federal service and nearly 13 years in my office alone, Bobette has decided to retire and close this chapter in her lifelong commitment to serving her community and her country. I will always be thankful to have had Bobette as a part of my team from the very beginning. Thank you, Bobette, for your service to Kentucky and to this country.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 4 minutes of debate equally divided on Senate amendments Nos. 1217 and 1347.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1217 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. The Federal Reserve effectively controls the economy but without scrutiny. No other institution has so much unchecked power. The Fed demonstrated its unlimited authority during the pandemic. The Fed printed money, purchased government-backed securities, and doled out massive amounts of money to favorite industries. The result added almost $5 trillion to the Fed's balance sheet, the largest in our history. When Dodd-Frank ordered a limited, one-time audit of Fed actions, the Government Accountability Office uncovered that during the financial crisis, the Fed doled out over $16 trillion to domestic and foreign banks. This kind of inflationary bailout should not be kept secret from the public. While the Fed's easy money policies make the rich richer, the side effect is high inflation. As Milton Friedman famously explained, ``Inflation is taxation without legislation.'' Congress cannot control the Fed's actions, but Fed actions can cost Americans dearly. Just ask any parent who has to feed his or her family during historically high inflation rates. My amendment would require a full audit of the Fed within 1 year. It is time for the Federal Reserve to operate in a manner that is transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1347 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the national debt just recently surpassed $33 trillion. That is $280,000 per household. Unless we change course, the debt only increases. CBO predicts trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. We borrow over $176,000,000 every hour, $3,000,000 is borrowed every minute, and $50,000 every second. It is out of control. Net interest payments are anticipated to double, from $475 billion to a trillion dollars by fiscal year 2028. Interest will be the largest item of expenditure for the Federal Government. Americans could pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to the welfare and warfare state. It could mean confiscatory tax rates, high inflation, and a weak economy. But it doesn't have to be this way. My amendment begins the path toward fiscal health by saving the taxpayers $30 billion. My amendment also cuts $25 billion that the Biden administration wants to use to sic the IRS on taxpayers to squeeze them for even more money. That is a reduction of $55 billion for what the government is on track to spend. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 1121, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, our Declaration of Independence asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. While voters may elect Members of Congress, Americans are increasingly governed by bureaucrats they do not know, will never meet, and cannot hold accountable. In 2022, the Biden administration imposed $117.1 billion in regulatory costs on the American people. Unelected, unknown, and unaccountable bureaucrats should not unilaterally develop the most significant public policies that impose costly burdens on American families and businesses. To restore republican accountability to our government, Senator Lee and I propose that we adopt as an amendment a bill that I have introduced for several years called the REINS Act. The REINS Act would require Congress to affirmatively approve every new major rule proposed by the executive branch before it is permitted to become effective. By passing the REINS Act, the American people, through their elected officials, will reclaim the ability to prevent unnecessary government interference in everyday life. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted privileges of the floor until December 15, 2023: Seamus Creighton-Kirk and Adam Weiss.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL

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 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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Senator Dianne Feinstein served the State of California in the Senate for over three decades. During that time, she emerged as a leading figure in the fight against America's use of torture on terrorist suspects and exposed the CIA's inappropriate spying on Congress. One of her legacies will be her investigation into the torture of suspected terrorists after 9/11. She did what Congress is supposed to do: hold the executive branch accountable to the Constitution, to our laws, and to the American people. Her efforts culminated in a report over 6,000 pages long documenting a plethora of disturbing interrogation practices. When the report was released, Senator Feinstein stated, ``I came to the conclusion that America's greatness is being able to say we made a mistake, and we are going to correct it and go from there.'' Although Senator Feinstein was generally an ally of the intelligence community and the surveillance state, she declared war on the CIA and accused the Agency of improperly accessing a Senate computer network to tamper with her inquiry into the detention and interrogation program. An investigation proved Senator Feinstein correct. The CIA's Inspector General concluded that employees improperly accessed--spied-- on the Senate Intelligence Committee's network. Then-CIA Director John Brennan, who initially declared that the CIA ``wouldn't do that'' and called the accusation ``beyond the scope of reason,'' apologized to Senator Feinstein for infiltrating her committee's computer network. My colleagues would do well to emulate Senator Feinstein by demanding an end to unconstitutional surveillance, defending the separation of powers, and learning to adopt a healthy suspicion of the intelligence community.