A joint resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Syria that have not been authorized by Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to invoke the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act requires that upon request from a Member of the Senate or a Member of Congress, that there will be a vote on whether or not troops should be put into harm's way or into a conflict without the approval of this body.

Our Founding Fathers felt very clearly on this that we should not go to war without a vote of the legislature. They wanted to make sure that the Executive or the President was prohibited from going to war without the authority of the legislature.

We have drifted away from that. There really hasn't been a valid declaration of war since World War II. We have, at times, taken votes to authorize a use of military force. They call them an AUMF. We did when we went into the Iraq war. So we did the voting properly. It was still a disastrous mistake to go there.

But we never have voted on being in Syria. We never have voted on having troops in the middle of the Syrian civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions of people have been displaced. We owe it to the soldiers who are in Syria--the U.S. soldiers, the young men and women in Syria--to have a debate and have a vote.

Now, the Senate doesn't want to do this. They are only doing this under duress because I am forcing them to vote on this issue. I have the power because it is called a privilege vote. They can't deny me this vote or this debate.

This will put the Senate on record: Are you for having troops in Syria? If so, why? What are they doing in Syria? I fear that they are merely a tripwire to a greater war or to a tragedy should a terrorist attack occur. They have become the target for the Iranian proxies. Will we ever learn?

As the fire of war spreads across the Middle East, the Biden administration sends aircraft carrier strike groups into the region without the debate of Congress about whether the United States should be further enmeshed in these region's conflicts. And will there be a debate at all?

For the past two decades, the wisdom of Washington foreign policy, the establishment, has embroiled our country in one war after another, impervious to the catastrophic consequences resulting from this adventurism. Some 7,000 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives in post-9/ 11 conflicts, tens of thousands more live with missing limbs, burn scars, or are confined to wheelchairs, to say nothing of the mental wounds of war. More than 30,000 veterans committed suicide since Washington's misguided project to remake the Middle East.

While our soldiers carried out their missions with honor, the Washington establishment has consistently failed them. Both Democrat and Republican Commanders in Chief repeatedly have ordered our troops into ill-advised conflicts with no vital national interest and no possibility of victory.

Syria is but one example. In 2014, the Obama administration entangled the United States in yet another endless war in the Middle East without congressional authorization, without a definition of victory, and without an exit strategy.

Operation Inherent Resolve was ostensibly intended to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, an abhorrent terrorist organization that was only able to thrive because of the chaos created by the Iraq war, by Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq.

The U.S.-led coalition carried out a significant air campaign again ISIS targets, conducting more than 11,000 airstrikes in Syria alone. But of course our intervention didn't stop there. President Obama unilaterally deployed boots on the ground, sending 300 Special Forces into Syria. My comments at the time were: Who goes to war with 300 people? Who sends 300 soldiers to a battle of thousands and thousands of troops? It was a terrible military strategy and still is.

By the end of 2017, the Pentagon revealed that we had, in fact, 2,000 American troops stationed on the ground in Syria. There were tens of thousands of Turkish troops; there are Syrian Kurds; there are Assad's troops; there are Russian troops; and we have got a couple thousand troops, sitting ducks, in the middle of this chaos.

Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973 to prevent this exact type of situation. At the time, the Nation was emerging from the national tragedy of the Vietnam war. That war was never declared as such. Yet it cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. Vietnam started with a few hundred U.S. military advisers but subsequently escalated to a point where there were over 540,000 troops, U.S. troops, in Vietnam.

The calamity of Vietnam prompted Congress to resolve that the President should never again be permitted to enter the United States into a prolonged war without congressional authority. The President doesn't have this constitutional authority. The President does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally declare war anywhere at any time for any reason. It is the prerogative of Congress; the Constitution is clear.

Congress must heed the lessons of the past and seize abdicating their constitutional warmaking power to the executive branch. If we are going to deploy our young men and women in uniform to some farflung corner of the planet and ask them to fight and potentially give their life for some supposed cause, shouldn't we, as their elected representatives, at least have the courage to debate the merits of sending them there? Shouldn't we debate if the mission is achievable? Shouldn't we debate what the mission actually is, what the purpose for having the troops actually is, and if it is possible for them to accomplish that mission?

The Syrian civil war is one of the greatest tragedies of our time. For the past 12 years, the Syrian people have endured unimaginable suffering. That country has been torn apart, beset by conflict from within and without.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the war has cost the lives of 600,000 people. The United Nations claims that more than 6.8 million people are internally displaced and another 5.2 million people live as refugees abroad.

It is a disaster.

Today, some 90 percent of the Syrian population lives in poverty. The war, which began as a civil uprising of the Syrian people against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, quickly transformed into a global catastrophe as other countries, militias, and terrorist groups turned Syria into their own proxy battlefield.

Like Vietnam, Syria should serve as a powerful warning of the dangers of Presidential overreach and the dangers of mission creep.

The American people are told that the United States is in Syria to fight ISIS, but we are not fighting ISIS. ISIS is gone. We also have been directly attacked by the Syrian government and pro-Assad forces. It is a much more complicated situation. We have targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Iranian-backed proxies. We have targeted every stripe of jihadist and militia group we could find in the region, which is lots.

In 2018, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States has even killed a couple hundred Russians who were in Syria as part of the Wagner Group. We also had our troops take fire from our own NATO ally Turkey. Just this past September, we returned the favor by shooting down an armed Turkish drone that came within 500 yards of U.S. forces. It is, obviously, a conflict; it is, obviously, a war; and it is, obviously, a dangerous place to have a few hundred troops with no clear-cut mission.

None of these conflicts were debated or authorized by Congress. Nine American servicemembers have been killed in Syria, and not once has this body debated the merits of our troops being deployed in harm's way there. The only reason the debate occurs today is because I am forcing them to have the debate. They would rather wash their hands of this and say: President--Republican, Democrat, whoever you are--you take care of it. We are washing our hands of this. We have no responsibility.

But, today, the Senate will take responsibility. Those who vote against my motion will be voting to have troops in Syria, and it will be their responsibility if calamity occurs.

There is a bipartisan agreement that the executive branch does not have authorization for military action, or at least there has been in the past. In 2017, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in an interview--he's a Democrat--said:

The President does not have authorization from Congress to

use force against the Syrian regime. He should come to

Congress and get the authorization for use of military force.

He has to come to Congress and the American people and tell

them what the game plan is. How do we get a resolution?

This was Democrats in 2017. Fast forward to Democrats today, and they say: No big deal. We have got a Democrat President. We don't want to appear to be critical of him. So even though we used to say there needs to be congressional authority when there was a Republican President, we no longer say that. Now we are just peachy keen with whatever happens.

If it was true in 2017, it is still true in 2023. Congress should either authorize a war or we should come home.

The Biden administration continues to say that we are there to defeat ISIS. Well, the ISIS caliphate was completely eradicated in 2019. Four years later, we still have 900 troops in Syria.

The administration claims it seeks an ``enduring'' defeat of ISIS. Not surprisingly, they don't define what ``enduring'' means. Obviously, it doesn't mean complete destruction of the ISIS caliphate, because the ISIS caliphate no longer exists. They hold no land. Our intelligence folks have said they don't even have the capacity to attack, much less have the desire to attack us now.

The administration's quarterly combined State and Defense Department inspector general reports that ``the majority of ISIS's branches likely lack the intent or capability to have direct attacks on the U.S. homeland.''

The only way they can get at us is if we are there. So, ISIS hasn't controlled territory for 4 years. They lack the capability and intent to attack the U.S., and those remaining members of ISIS--there are, indeed, still radical extremists--they are surrounded by numerous state and non-state actors who also seek to eradicate them. Between the Turks, the Syrian Kurds, the Syrian government, none of them are happy to have ISIS there if it should try to arise again.

It seems to me, though, that our 900 troops have no viable mission in Syria; that they are sitting ducks; they are a trip wire to a larger war; and without a clear-cut mission, I don't think they could adequately defend themselves. Yet they remain in Syria, and they remain vulnerable to attack by other groups.

Our troops in Syria regularly come under attack--not from ISIS, but from Iranian-backed militias. Since Joe Biden took office, Iranian- backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces in Syria

and Iraq more than 160 times. They attack us because we are in close proximity to them; and they couldn't attack us, frankly, if we weren't there.

These attacks have accelerated following Hamas' monstrous October 7 attack on Israel. Since October 17, U.S. troops have been attacked at least 76 times--40 times in Syria and 36 times in Iraq.

According to the Pentagon, a total of 60 U.S. military were injured in these attacks. Of those, at least 32 were at the al-Tanf garrison in southeastern Syria, where our soldiers suffered various injuries including traumatic brain injuries.

The U.S. responded with a series of strikes on facilities used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its proxies in Syria and Iraq.

During his time in office, President Biden has carried out strikes on Iranian proxies on at least eight separate occasions. Each time, the White House claimed that the strikes were necessary to deter further attacks.

How many times do our troops need to be attacked for the administration to realize that we are not deterring anyone?

Does anybody believe the ninth air strike will make a difference or do the trick?

We are actually a target. We are a trip wire. We are a place they can actually reach by being there with no clear-cut mission.

In 2019, Joe Biden, as Presidential candidate, promised to end the forever wars in the Middle East, saying:

Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts only drains our

capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention.

I wish he still had the same belief.

But 900 troops sitting in the middle of the Syrian desert does not advance U.S. interests or provide deterrence. In fact, their presence does the exact opposite. Their presence invites the Iranian proxies to be able to reach them with attacks. This is the only way these groups can strike at the United States. It is the only way they can get attention. If they kill each other, no one seems to pay attention; if they kill Americans, they pay attention. So why would we plop Americans down in the desert within a few dozen miles of these folks and allow them to be attacked? We actively are providing Iran leverage to direct proxies to attack U.S. forces. This is the sort of strategic genius-- so-called genius that the Washington establishment parades around as prudent foreign policy.

Our troops' presence also risks getting us dragged into a wider regional war. Imagine if these recent attacks resulted in the deaths of 60 of our servicemembers--not injuries but deaths. How would the Biden administration react to that? History is replete with major wars breaking out for less.

President Biden would do well to channel the wisdom of President Ronald Reagan.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan withdrew U.S. troops from Lebanon following the Beirut Marine Corps barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. military personnel. Remarking on the decision in his autobiography, Reagan wrote:

In the weeks [immediately] after the bombing, I believed

the last thing that we should do was to turn tail and leave.

Yet the irrationality of the Middle East politics forced us

to rethink our policy there. If there would be some

rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot

better off. If that policy had changed towards more of

neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would

still be alive today.

President Reagan made the right decision in 1984, and we now have the chance to make the right decision in 2023, without any more American servicemembers being injured or killed.

The American people have had enough of endless wars in the Middle East. The American people have had enough of the uniparty--the ``demopublican'' party directing their sons and daughters to fight and risk their lives in these internecine conflicts when the United States is not directly threatened and no vital U.S. interest is at stake.

My War Powers Resolution that I put forward today offers the American people an opportunity to see how clearly their elected Senators view our unconstitutional, unnecessary, and dangerous presence in Syria.

This vote makes it impossible for Senators to avoid voting or stating their opinion on having troops in Syria. Today's vote essentially puts every Senator on record as being either for or against having U.S. troops in Syria.

I urge all my colleagues to muster the courage to reclaim their constitutional responsibilities by voting to remove U.S. troops in Syria. Let's finally bring our troops home.

With that, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 51 from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. President, yesterday morning, Democrats came to the floor of the Senate to try and pass the assault weapons ban and other lifesaving gun safety legislation. Sadly, Republicans stood in the way of the Senate passing lifesaving legislation to get rid of the scourge of gun violence in America.

Just hours later, we learned of yet another shooting on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Our prayers are with the victims of the shooting at UNLV and their families, our prayers are with the students and staff of the university reeling from this horror, and thanks to the brave law enforcement officers who responded to the shooting and prevented even more deaths. The pain from these shootings in these communities never truly fades.

30th anniversary of the long island rail road massacre

Mr. President, I still remember the pain I felt when I first heard about the Long Island Rail Road massacre which happened in my own backyard.

Today, December 7, marks 30 years since the Long Island Rail Road massacre. It is heartbreaking that the horrors of a tragedy 30 years old still feel like it happened yesterday.

I remember the reports well: the 5:33 p.m. rush hour train from Penn Station, filled with commuters, average working Americans going home after a hard day's work to see their families. Moments later, a gunman unleashed carnage--6 dead, 19 injured. Many more lives were shattered, changed forever.

Among those killed and injured were the husband and son of Carolyn McCarthy, a nurse from Mineola. Following the shooting, Carolyn began to advocate for tougher gun laws. Carolyn understood that something had to change.

So after Carolyn's Congressman at the time announced he would be voting to repeal the assault weapons ban that I had championed--I carried the law in the House--she took matters into her own hands and ran for a seat in the House and won on that issue. She served in Congress for 18 years with me

and many of my colleagues in this building and remained a vocal advocate for stronger gun safety laws.

So now, in memory of those lost and those injured 30 years ago today on the 5:33 p.m. Long Island Rail Road train, I ask for this Chamber to observe a brief moment of silence.

(Moment of silence.)

Supplemental Funding

Now, Mr. President, last night was a sad moment for the Senate, for the country, and for our friends in Ukraine and Israel and around the world. With our values and democracy on the line, Senate Republicans killed a much needed bill with funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza, and for the Indo-Pacific.

If there is a word for what we need now most, it is to be serious. Republicans need to be serious and stop game-playing. It is absurd that we are even in this situation to begin with.

Let me retrace the steps that got us here and then how we can get out and get something done.

First, we all know how important Ukraine aid is. Both sides have long claimed to support it. To quote a recent speech from my friend the Republican leader, Leader McConnell, ``helping a democratic partner . . . against an unprovoked attack from a common enemy is obviously in America's interest.''

In another speech here on the floor, Leader McConnell added that ``now . . . is not the time to ease up'' on helping Ukraine defending their sovereignty. Interestingly, he didn't mention anything about the southern border that day.

Second, it was Republicans who threw an unnecessary wrench into Ukraine funding by tying it to the extraneous issue of border. We all agree that border security is important. President Biden included strong border provisions in the proposal he sent us. But we also know it is a complicated issue--very complex--that has escaped bipartisan solution for years.

I am certainly willing to have that difficult conversation. I was a leader of the Gang of 8 that produced the last real border compromise a decade ago. But it is not realistic for Republicans to suddenly hold up Ukraine aid, which they claim to support, and then suddenly demand that we take up border, which has been a problem for years, and then solve it in a matter of days. Nevertheless, we Democrats were willing to give it a try.

And that is my third point. For 3 weeks, Democrats have sat down at the negotiating table with our Republican counterparts to see if something on the border was possible. We talked for 3 weeks, and, actually, negotiations ended up moving backward after Speaker Johnson said the only thing his Republican caucus would accept was Donald Trump's extreme border policies as embodied in H.R. 2. So Democrats tried to negotiate in good faith, but after the Speaker pushed H.R. 2, talks remained at an impasse.

Fourth, to work our way out of this morass, we Democrats offered our Republican colleagues a golden opportunity: an offer for a vote on an amendment on any border policy of their choosing. And all they would have needed to pass it were 11 Democratic votes. They rejected our offer.

I must say, it defies credulity for Republicans to demand border, hold up Ukraine because of the border, and then reject an offer to vote on a border amendment of their own crafting here on the floor.

It may well be that Republicans can't even agree among themselves on a proposal. Either way, they rejected our offer and voted down the bill.

So where are we now that that has happened yesterday? Well, we are left with only two paths forward to break the logjam: Either Republicans can take us up on an amendment offer or we can restart negotiations.

Now, if we are to negotiate, it has to be in good faith. Republicans need to show they are serious about reaching a compromise--not just throwing on the floor basically Donald Trump's border policies.

Again, Republicans need to be serious and stop the game-playing. They have been game-playing when they pushed Donald Trump's radical border policies, when they said border is the ransom they want, and when they moved the goalposts during negotiations.

We need to stop playing around and get serious about the immense challenge in front of us. Both sides must accept that we have to compromise on things important to each side if we have any hope of passing the supplemental.

Let me state: We Democrats very much--very much--want an agreement. We are willing to make compromises and concessions to meet our Republican colleagues, as long as they are willing to do the same.

Let me conclude, again, with how important this is and with the warning that the Republican leader issued in recent months that if we aren't willing to invest in the defense of democracy right now, we are going to be forced to pay a much higher price down the line. It is better to defend democracy with American resources today, instead of American lives tomorrow. That is the danger of allowing brutes like Vladimir Putin to win the day. So the time is now for us to show the world we are willing to defend democracy in its hour of need.

Democrats are serious about reaching a reasonable, bipartisan compromise to pass this security package. The question is if Republicans are now willing to do the same.

Hanukkah

Mr. President, finally, on Hanukkah, Jewish people around the country and around the world will celebrate tonight the first night of Hanukkah. This year, more than most years, Hanukkah comes at a moment of grief, of trial, and of fear for many Jewish Americans. And, perhaps, for that, it is all the more meaningful. The story of Hanukkah is a story of perseverance--perseverance in the face of unspeakable hatred.

We have been taught about how the Jews of a different age--forced from their land, forbidden to practice their religion, their temple destroyed and desecrated--gathered to pray in secret, banded together in the hills and fields, and fought off their attackers. And once they endured, they set about the hard and slow and painful work of rededicating the temple and lighting once again the eternal flame of hope.

I believe that America should do the same thing right now: rededicate ourselves to that noble promise of being a land of tolerance for all people--all people. Anti-Semitism, frighteningly, is on the rise. Islamophobia is on the rise. Hatred and discrimination remain a festering wound in the soul of our country. We must rededicate ourselves to stand against anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination. We must rededicate ourselves to rebuilding a more perfect Union, one that preserves tolerance and equality for every single American.

I have faith that the forces of intolerance will lose in the end, just as they did in the days of Hanukkah, when Judah Maccabee led the Jewish people against an oppressive majority.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, yesterday, every single Republican rejected the Democratic leader's attempt to separate border security from national security. As we have said for weeks, that was a futile effort that was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Hopefully, the Senate can now seize a new opportunity to make real progress on legislation that addresses urgent national security priorities both at home and abroad.

So let's establish a few things going forward: It is profoundly unserious to pretend that national security priorities don't include securing our Nation's borders, to warn about borders in jeopardy and not start with the one that is being overrun here at home, to invoke threats facing sovereign nations without a clear plan to uphold America's own sovereignty.

Mr. President, I am not in need of any lectures about the gravity of the challenges facing national security. I don't need any admonishments about what is at stake for America and our allies in Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression. I am well aware that the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism remains undeterred from trying to kill Americans in the Middle East. And I certainly have not forgotten that China, our top strategic adversary, is watching what we do very closely.

Instead, unfortunately, it has been the Biden administration-- including our Commander in Chief--who has all too often needed reminders about the responsibilities of a global superpower. From Europe to the Middle East, the administration has reached new heights of self-deterrence.

With Putin's forces massing on the borders of Ukraine, the administration slow-walked lethal assistance. As the Russian offensive unfolded, they held back the most decisive capabilities Ukraine needed out of an unfounded fear of escalation.

And even with further security assistance hanging in the balance, the Biden administration has been slow--very slow--to sell this urgent measure and its massive domestic benefits to our people here at home.

From the outset, the Biden administration resumed the Obama-era efforts to reset relations with Tehran and removed the Iran-backed Houthis from the terrorism list. Also, it is no surprise that Iran has snubbed its nose at these displays of weakness. It is no surprise that U.S. personnel are facing a spike in terrorist attacks from Iraq and Syria to the Red Sea. But the administration continues to pull its punches.

And meanwhile, Republicans have spent years urging the administration to start performing even the bare minimum of its fundamental responsibility to secure our southern border and enforce our Nation's laws.

Right now, the crisis created by the Biden administration's neglect is bringing illegal aliens to the United States at the rate of 300,000 a month. That is roughly the population of Lexington, KY, arriving every month. And thanks to an asylum and parole system that desperately needs fixing, many of them are just brought straight in.

I know many of our Democratic colleagues recognize the urgency of this crisis. I know many of them are ready to help restore sanity at our southern border.

Well, Senator Lankford, Senator Graham, and other Republican colleagues are still working hard to do exactly that. There is no time like the present to join them in those efforts.

Syria

Mr. President, now, on a different matter, this morning the Senate will vote on a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American military forces from Syria. Passage of such a resolution would be a gift to Iran and its terrorist network. Driving American troops from the Middle East is exactly what they would like to see.

Adopting this short-sighted measure would wreck America's credibility in the region. It would encourage Iran's proxies to open a northern front in the territorial war against Israel. It would invite America's adversaries to challenge our military presence throughout the world.

Back in 2019, as our colleagues may recall, the Senate went on record about the wisdom of withdrawing prematurely from Syria and Afghanistan. At that time, the vast majority of us rejected such a retreat. And those who didn't have since watched President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, Putin's escalation against Ukraine, China's growing challenge to international peace and stability, and Iran's glaring threat to America and to Israel.

Today is the 82nd anniversary of Pearl Harbor. It is a day to remember the cost of being caught on our heels. A vote in favor of this resolution is a vote for retreat in the face of terror.

Bidenomics

Mr. President, now, on one final matter, working Americans can't seem to catch a break from Bidenomics. Washington Democrats' spending sprees on President Biden's watch have driven inflation up 17.6 percent. And the effects are becoming inescapable.

In my home State, many small business owners have been forced to raise their prices to keep up with the rising costs. One shop owner in Lexington, put it:

I make food and chocolates and all the ingredients have

gone up.

I've been battling with increasing my prices which I don't

want to do.

Just like in cities and towns across the country, small businesses in Lexington are facing declining foot traffic, which might have something to do with the consumers' shrinking paychecks. Inflation is eating away at people's savings.

By one estimate, the average American family would need an extra $11,400 a year just to maintain the standard of living they had when President Biden took office. And, needless to say, folks on fixed incomes are among the hardest hit.

One 68-year-old retiree in western Massachusetts summed up his struggle to make ends meet in the Biden economy. Here is what he said:

You get your check and then you have to sit down there . .

. like `What am I going to pay [out]? Am I going to get food

or lose my electricity?' . . . I can't spend nothing anymore.

I have to pay rent, utilities, food, medicine.

This is what the American people are up against. This is everyday life under Bidenomics. Bizarrely, the Biden administration still seems to hold its favorite phrase in high esteem. The White House Press Secretary called Bidenomics ``the word of the year.''

Well, working Americans feel quite differently. And the President's hometown is no exception. As one resident from Scranton, PA, reported recently:

[E]verything is going up, except for paychecks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, if Democrats were unsure about Republicans' seriousness about including meaningful border security provisions in the national security supplemental, yesterday's vote made it crystal clear. Every single Senate Republican rejected Democrats' collective attempt to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that what is happening at our southern border isn't a threat to our security.

Border security is national security, which is why any national security supplemental that moves through this Chamber must tackle this crisis head-on.

On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and told Members:

I've never seen a time where all the threats or so many of

the threats are all elevated all at exactly the same time.

Senator Graham then asked Wray to comment on the threat environment using the blinking red lights analogy often used about warnings before the September 11 attacks. And Director Wray responded:

I see blinking lights everywhere I turn.

``I see blinking lights everywhere I turn.''

It is against the background of this threat environment that Republicans are asking Democrats to finally--and I say finally--help secure our border.

We have endured 3, now, recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at our southern border under President Biden, and the situation is only getting worse.

Tuesday saw a staggering 12,000 migrant encounters at our southern border--12,000 in just 1 day. That is 8 people per minute, and that follows 2 days of 10,000-plus encounters. I am not sure how anyone can look at these numbers and not think this is a crisis.

Plus, those numbers don't count any ``got-aways''--those are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend--who may have made their way across the border during that same period. The month of October saw an average of roughly 1,000 ``got-aways'' per day. That is roughly 30,000 unknown individuals who made their way into our country--30,000 in just 1 month. All told, there have been more than 1.7 million known ``got-aways'' on President Biden's watch, not to mention an unknown number of unknown ``got-aways.''

These ``got-aways'' are not the migrants who are showing up, hoping to be apprehended because they know they can game the asylum or parole system. No--these are individuals bent on avoiding detection, which should concern us deeply.

Anyone who doesn't think bad actors are attempting to exploit the situation at our southern border needs to think

again. During fiscal year 2023, the Border Patrol apprehended 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist attempting to make their way across our southern border into our country. That number, by the way, is more than the total of the previous 6 fiscal years combined.

FBI Director Wray noted at that same Judiciary Committee hearing that since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, the threat level has gone to ``a whole other level.'' Abroad, American troops have been attacked nearly 80 times since October 7. It is naive to think that there aren't terrorists out there currently trying to make their way into the United States to attack our country. Why wouldn't any terrorist trying to enter our country take advantage of the chaos at our southern border?

You don't have to take my word for it. The Department of Homeland Security, in its threat assessment released in September, noted the risk that ``terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated flow [of migration] and increasingly complex security environment to enter the United States.'' That assessment was written before--before-- the October 7 attack or the many attacks on U.S. troops abroad that followed it.

If there was a risk before, I think it is safe to say that there is an even greater risk now.

This situation cannot continue. The massive flood of illegal immigration at our southern border has to stop, and that is why the national security supplemental must contain real measures to secure the border--not cosmetic fixes, not superficial tweaks, real border security measures.

I believe it is in our national security interests to support allies like Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine, but we cannot support American interests abroad while continuing to sacrifice the security of the American people here at home.

For 3 years, the Biden administration has put out a de facto welcome mat at our southern border. If we want to protect our country, that has to stop, and it has to stop now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand that shortly we will be considering a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 51 from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I take this time to urge my colleagues to vote against that motion to discharge.

I understand the concerns of my colleague from Kentucky about ensuring that Congress exercises the appropriate role in authorizing the use of military force. I appreciate the Senator's longstanding interest in these important matters.

I value having what I believe are critically important debates about when and under what authorities U.S. troops serve abroad. Decisions about authorizing the use of military force are among the most solemn duties we have in this body. But here, the decision is not so simple as the Senator from Kentucky presents it.

The Middle East is unstable right now. I don't have to remind my colleagues about that. ISIS's territorial caliphate might have been defeated, but it remains a threat to Syrians, Iraqis, and to U.S. interests. Now is not the time to withdraw from the region, but that is what this joint resolution would do without weighing the consequences, without a plan.

Think about what impact it would have. Think about what it would do to the resolve of our NATO allies and Kurdish partners fighting ISIS alongside the United States. We are not there alone; we are part of a coalition. Will they stick it out if we don't?

Think about how this would hurt the Syrian people. Without U.S. presence, civilians would be caught between ISIS and the Assad regime. Think about the ISIS terrorist cells that would have free reign to expand their operations in Syria. They will use it as a base to attack Iraq, where just last week they killed 11 innocent people.

Think about what a gift this would be to the Assad regime, who has committed atrocities, aided and abetted by Russia and Iran. The regime would strengthen its control of Syria, putting at risk the very people who fought side by side with the United States, people who would be subjected to the Assad regime's industrial-scale system of torture and murder.

Then there are the Assad backers--Russia and Iran. Putin wants the Middle East to descend into chaos and distract the world from his war in Ukraine. Iran's longstanding strategic objective has been to push the United States out of the region. We see it in proxy attacks on U.S. facilities and on global shipping.

Not only would pulling U.S. troops out of Syria be a propaganda win for Iran, it would be a strategic victory. It would make it easier for Iran to move weapons through Syria to Hezbollah. Do we want Hezbollah to have more weapons aimed at our ally Israel right now? We don't want to see an escalation of the conflict.

At a time when the administration is working to prevent the Gaza conflict from spilling over, this would be the wrong thing for us to do. The last thing we want is the conflict in Israel and Gaza to expand across the region.

For all of those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 51 if that motion is made by my colleague from Kentucky.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.