Floor Speech on President Trump's strikes on Tren de Aragua

Incredibly, the Democrats are here to condemn President Trump's recent strikes against narco-terrorists operating in our backyard. Maybe they want to distract from the Schumer Shutdown by tying the president's hands and siding with narco-terrorists who have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on their hands.

Whatever the reason, this would be foolhardy. If you think I'm exaggerating here, let me remind you of the kind of depraved savages we're dealing with.

Recall the Tren de Aragua gang member who tried to rape 22-year-old Laken Riley while she was out for a jog on a college campus. After Laken fought back, this savage smashed her head with a rock and strangled her to death.

Also, recall the two Tren de Aragua gang members who, after being released into our country by Joe Biden, raped and murdered 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray. These animals threw this innocent little girl's body off a bridge.

Finally, consider the recent arrest of the Tren de Aragua gang leader who kidnapped three women and shot them in the back of the head in an alley in Chicago. Only one survived to call for help.

These are the sort of horrific acts of violence that narco-terrorists commit against Americans.

And of course, these narco-terrorists, many affiliated with Tren de Aragua, also flood our country with dangerous drugs that have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year, after year, after year. They target every state in our union with their poison.

This is among the many reasons why President Trump was well within his constitutional authority to take action against these narco-terrorists that put American lives at risk. These recent strikes fulfilled President Trump's constitutional duty to protect Americans as their elected commander-in-chief. And this should come as no surprise. President Trump stated-very clearly and repeatedly-during the campaign that he would attack these cartels if necessary. This is simply him keeping his word to the American people.

Also, the president's strikes were lawfully sound and extremely limited. Because they have been going on for less than 60 days, they don't even fall within the War Powers Resolution threshold.

I would also note that presidential action like this is hardly unheard of or unique. For context, as of the mid-twentieth century, scholars identified more than 100 military deployments or actions that lacked express prior congressional authorization.

I could go back to the beginning of the republic, with the Barbary pirates off the coast of North Africa.

But there's another example much closer in time, and for that matter, on the border. That would be President George H.W. Bush's decision to invade and topple the government of Panama in 1989.

Without prior congressional approval, he ordered 12,000 American troops into that country. We toppled Panama's illegitimate regime, we apprehended the country's dictator, and he spent the rest of his life in foreign custody.

Now, let's compare these two cases. In both cases, you had the leader of a country that is indicted by the United States courts for drug trafficking. In both cases, that leader is not recognized by the United States government as the legitimate leader of his country. I'd say the comparison ends there, because the case is much stronger here than it was in 1989.

Maduro also has, I think, a $50 million reward on his head from our government. Maduro is associated with a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Noriega didn't have a reward. Noriega wasn't associated with a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Maduro is in league with China, Russia, Iran, Cuba. Noriega was not.

Yet, George Bush invaded Panama and overthrew its government. I don't hear many Democrats in retrospect saying that this was an unwise action or made our country less safe. And somehow Donald Trump is doing those things, merely by striking a few boats of drug traffickers in international waters?

Now, even if you had misgivings about these strikes, even maybe if you were a Democrat in Congress in 1989, as some of our colleagues were, and you condemned President Bush for taking action to defend our country, I would still point out that the resolution before us is overbroad. The resolution prevents the president from taking offensive action against any foreign terrorist organization designated on or after February 20th of this year. This includes the Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

It appears our Democratic friends have forgotten that the Houthis are responsible for at least 150 attacks against the United States and allied naval and commercial ships, which have killed at least three people. These terrorists have also targeted our friends in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, mostly civilians for that matter.

So, if the Democrats had their way, President Trump would not be able to, for example, strike a secret meeting of senior Houthi leaders. Wouldn't be able to strike imminent attacks on our friends in countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

I think we should all agree that we want our president when terrorists are gathered together with the purpose of planning attacks against American civilians, our troops, or our friends abroad to have the authority necessary to take action.

Now the Democrats claim, "Oh there is a carve out in our resolution. Oh, we have a saving clause. We have a rule of construction that says our troops can defend themselves."

Once again, they are misleading the American people. I invite you to read it closely. It may allow our sailors to defend themselves if these Houthi terrorists shoot a missile or drone directly at their ship, but it absolutely ties the president's hands if, for instance, we have intelligence about a senior meeting of Houthi terrorist leaders. It absolutely ties the president's hands from protecting our friends in places like Jerusalem, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi. There's no question about that; it's the black letter of the resolution. It only goes for about three lines. I invite anyone to read it, and you'll understand that the Democrats are once again dissembling.

No reasonable person denies the authority of the president to strike a terrorist threat on foreign soil, yet the Democrats are here tonight questioning the president's authority to do the exact same thing in our own backyard-in international waters, no less, not even foreign territory. This is a dangerous double standard.

Therefore, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and to get back to the more pressing business of reopening our government.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.