[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 121 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4820-S4823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Cuba

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, the world and the country yesterday watched 
these images out of Cuba. It is really unprecedented. In 62 years of 
communist tyranny on the island of Cuba, we have never seen and there 
has never been what now is up to 40 cities in which people took to the 
streets--organically, unorganized, grassroots--to ask for the end of 
that tyranny. And I think it is important for a lot of people that are 
new to the issue to sort of understand what that means and what it is 
all about.
  I think the first lesson we need to take away from it is that 
Marxism, socialism doesn't work. The way socialism, the way Marxism has 
always worked--the way it has always empowered itself--is it goes to a 
people and it immediately divides them. It says: There is the 
suppressor class, and then there is this victim class. And these evil 
oppressors--capitalists, in the case of socialism or traditional 
Marxism--they oppress the victims. And what you have to do is you have 
to give us the power in government to take care of these oppressors and 
to go after these oppressors, and if you give us that power, we will 
deliver you security and we will protect you from the oppressors. They 
ask for security in exchange for freedom. That is always the price that 
socialism asks for--security.
  And what you wind up with is a country of people that hate each 
other, and they are angry at each other. A significant portion of the 
people in the country have to leave, have to flee, go to jail, because 
they are the oppressor class. Their lives are destroyed. Their family 
lives are destroyed.
  But the socialism can't deliver the security. And when it can't 
deliver the security, you don't get your freedom back. And, in fact, 
when you start to complain about that, that is when the repression 
comes.
  Well, that is what happened in Cuba. Socialism and Marxism has done 
to Cuba what it has done everywhere in the world that it has been 
tried. It has failed. It has failed. They gave up their freedom. Or 
they were told: Give up your freedom in exchange for a world-class 
healthcare system.
  It is not a world-class healthcare system. In fact, it is a 
healthcare system that does not even have the ability to deal with 
COVID at its very basic level.
  They said: Give up your freedom for economic security.
  What economic security? People are hungry, homes are crumbling, and 
there is no economy. There is no real economy in Cuba.
  Give up your freedom and you will have an education--free education 
for everybody.
  That education--No. 1, you are a doctor, but you can drive a taxicab 
in Cuba and make more money. Or, No. 2, you get sent, forced to go, 
overseas and work basically on slave wages, no pay--barely any pay at 
all. It is basically human trafficking, as our own Department of State 
found when it looked at the Cuban doctors' program and how it has been 
abused.
  So what has happened in Cuba is that socialism has failed. It has to 
repress people who complain about it. You don't get your freedom back.
  And like socialists always do, they have to find someone to blame. 
And whom do they blame? No. 1, they blame anybody in the country who 
doesn't agree with them. You are immediately a counterrevolutionary. 
You are immediately a pawn of the imperialists. And, then, of course, 
they always blame the United States.
  The problem in Cuba for the regime is that the people aren't falling 
for those lies anymore. They are not. The embargo, that is the first 
thing they blame: It is the embargo. The embargo is causing all of 
this.
  Why aren't fishermen and farmers in Cuba allowed to fish or grow 
things and sell it to people? It is not the embargo that keeps them 
from doing that. It is the regime
  Why can't Cubans own a small business? Why can't a Cuban do in Cuba 
what they can do in Miami, what they can do in Washington, and what 
they do in countries all over the world, and they can't do it in Cuba? 
They can't open a small business. That is not the embargo that keeps 
them from doing it. In fact, U.S. law allows us to trade and to do 
commerce with small businesses that are independently owned by Cubans. 
Do you know why Cubans can't own small businesses? It is not the 
embargo. It is not the United States. It is the regime that doesn't 
allow it.
  People have seen these lies. How can they afford to build luxury, 
four-star, world-class hotels for tourists, but they cannot afford to 
deal with the crumbling homes that Cubans are living in, with roofs 
literally falling in over their heads and with water leaking into 
operating rooms at hospitals?
  Look at what they do with the money. Oh, it is because you don't 
allow more money to be sent. When an American or a Cuban American sends 
money to their family members in Cuba--in the past, through Western 
Union--the regime takes 10 percent off the top, and then they take 
those dollars you sent and they force the Cubans to convert it into 
worthless Cuban currency. They keep the dollars. And, then, guess what: 
If you want to buy anything, you have to buy it from a government 
store, and guess what the

[[Page S4821]]

government store sells things for? Dollars. That is not the embargo. 
That is the Cuban regime that does that.
  And who is it that is putting people in jail, gets your head cracked 
open, and gets your door kicked out in the middle of the night? There 
are 80 people missing today. At least 80 people disappeared overnight. 
The families don't know where they are. That is not the embargo that is 
jailing people. That is the regime.
  And that is what I tell people. You can open up all you want. We can 
pass a bill here that says: Open to Cuba--100 percent open. You can do 
whatever you want--full, free trade. You can do whatever you want. At 
the end of the day, the Cuban regime will control that opening. It is 
not just what we want to do. It is what they want to do.
  Do you want to do tourism? We tried that in 2015 with the Obama 
changes, and do you know what they did? They said: Thank you. We love 
the fact that you are coming here as tourists.
  Guess what. All the tourist sites are owned by a holding company 
named GAESA, controlled by the Cuban military. So everything comes 
through their hands.
  You want to send them food? That is great. Guess who gets it: 
ALIMPORT, which is a government, military-owned agriculture company. 
You can't sell it to a small grocery store in Cuba or even a food 
wholesaler. It goes to the Cuban Government.
  You want to send money? They take it. Do you know why? Because 
socialism is about control, and all of these things--tourism, food, 
money, medicine--it is all about control.
  You want humanitarian aid? Let's get the Red Cross. Any of these 
vetted NGOs in the world should be allowed to go into Cuba. They won't 
allow it--A, because it is embarrassing to them. They have a world 
class healthcare system. Why do they need humanitarian aid? But, B, 
because they want to control it.
  Send them vaccines, but if you put them in their hands--the 
government, the regime--guess who gets the vaccine: the people who 
behave; first, the regime elites and then the people who behave. If you 
are not behaving and if you are not going along with what they want you 
to do, you won't get a vaccine.
  They will use any opening as a tool and as a weapon against their 
people because that is what socialism does. That is what these Marxists 
do in Cuba. They will use anything as a weapon against the people of 
Cuba.
  What can we do is what people want to know. No. 1, I hope that we 
will all be clear about whose side we are on. You don't have to even 
agree with anything I have said. What you should agree with is that 
people everywhere in the world, including 90 miles from our shore, 
should be allowed to go into the street, peacefully march, call for an 
end of dictatorship, and not have their heads cracked open.
  By the way, no one in Cuba has guns, except the military. So why are 
these repressive forces walking around with these rifles and people are 
getting shot? They are shooting people that literally are unarmed.
  They should be able to do that, and it should be clear. We should be 
clear in our language. We don't just condemn this tyranny. We condemn 
this communist, this Marxist, this socialist tyranny. Call it for what 
it is.
  No. 2, we should make clear that nothing is going to change. There is 
not going to be any sanctions changed as a result of this. On the 
contrary, I hope the Biden administration will now announce that they 
have finished their review of Cuba policy, and everything that is in 
place is staying in place
  To the extent we change policy, No. 3, I hope we make it a top 
priority to allow the people of Cuba to have free, unfettered, and open 
internet access. And the technology exists to do that with a satellite-
based system. We should put the best minds to work on getting that done 
because if the Cuban people have free and unfettered access to the 
internet--the first thing the regime shut down yesterday was the 
internet--they can communicate with each other, and they can receive 
information and communicate with the world. Ninety miles from our 
shore, you should be allowed to do that.
  No. 4, for all of those who believe and have faith in the 
international community--and I still hold hope that one day it will 
work again--where is Spain? Where is the EU? Where are all these 
countries that for years have given cover and protection to the Cuban 
regime and condemned America? They should speak out clearly that what 
is happening there is wrong and that repression is wrong. We should 
rally that. We should use our position of strength and power in the 
world and our influence in diplomatic circles to make that happen.
  And, No. 5, I hope the President will be very clear with the regime 
in Cuba that we will not tolerate them encouraging a mass migration 
event--because I am warning you, this is what they do. They have done 
it twice already. They step back and they say: Look, if you don't lift 
sanctions, if you don't go back to the Obama-era policies, and if you 
don't get rid of the embargo, it is inevitable that you are going to 
have 50,000 people take to the ocean and head toward the United States.
  They have used that against us twice. They did it in 1994, and they 
did it in 1980 with the Mariel boat lift. President Biden needs to be 
clear, whether it is through private channels or saying it publicly--be 
abundantly clear that we will treat the encouragement of mass migration 
toward the United States as a hostile action and act accordingly. That 
cannot--cannot--be tolerated.
  I want to close with this. I recognize that most of the Members of 
this Chamber, most of the people here in Washington, and, frankly, most 
of the people in the country do not pay attention to Cuba on a daily 
basis. I get it. I really do. But if you are not following the issue of 
Cuba, you can be forgiven for not knowing that what we are seeing, what 
we saw yesterday, what we are seeing today, what happened recently--
none of this--was started by politicians. It wasn't started by me. It 
wasn't started by anybody in Miami or in Florida. It wasn't started by 
any think tank in Washington. It wasn't even started by political 
activists inside of Cuba.
  Do you know who started what is happening in Cuba? Artists, poets, 
songwriters, writers, actors, musicians. They are the ones who started 
it--the San Isidro Movement--because they came after them.
  And there is a song. A lot of people don't realize it. There was a 
song that came out earlier this year--a song that, by the way, if you 
play in Cuba, you will go to jail. The song's name is ``Patria y 
Vida.'' Now, the slogan of the Cuban regime is ``Patria o Muerte,'' 
meaning ``Fatherland or Death.'' This song played on that, and it says, 
``Patria y Vida,'' which means ``Fatherland and Life,'' instead of 
``Fatherland or Death.'' And the song is extraordinarily powerful 
because it was written by people and sung by people who have lived this 
reality and are living this reality. It so powerful. As I said, you 
will go to jail in Cuba if you play it.
  What the song basically says in its lyrics is: Why can't people think 
in different ways and not be treated as enemies? Why is life so good 
for party insiders and their families but there is no food for average 
Cubans? There seems to be no embargo for the Cuban regime and their 
family members. Why can you build luxury hotels while our homes are 
crumbling? Why do Cubans have to suffer the indignities--the 
indignities--the simple things like not being able to bathe with soap, 
not being able to use deodorant, not having toothpaste--why do they 
have to deal with these indignities? And who--the song also asks--who 
told the regime that Cuba belongs to them and only them? Shouldn't it 
belong to all 13 million Cubans?
  The chorus I will read first in English, and then I will translate it 
in Spanish, because it actually plays on ``dominoes.'' Dominoes is a 
very popular game played by Cubans. It is played by everybody, but 
Cubans, in particular. It is a big game there.
  The chorus reads:
  (English translation of statement made in Spanish is as follows:)
  And how it translates is that it basically says:

       It's over. Your 59--

  Meaning 1959, the year that Castro took over--

       But I have double twos.

  And everyone knows that in the dominoes game, if, at the end of a 
chain,

[[Page S4822]]

both dominoes, no one has any dominoes to put down, the game gets 
locked, and you count numbers and count dots to see who won.
  So it says:

       It's over. Your 59, but I have double twos. It's over. 
     Sixty years with a domino game locked up for us.

  Now, I know this is a very colloquial Cuban way of expressing it, but 
this is incredibly powerful. The people in Cuba understood what that 
means, and that means that all this ideology, all this stuff they talk 
about, and all these lies of the regime that worked out really well for 
them, people don't believe it anymore, and they are not afraid anymore. 
Meanwhile, their lives are ruined. Young people in Cuba, artists in 
Cuba who realize that the only country on this planet were Cubans are 
not successful is Cuba, and they are tired of it, and we should stand 
with them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  Ms. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to once again call for 
every Senator to have an opportunity to vote on a generational bill to 
fix how the military deals with sexual assault and other serious 
crimes.
  It is the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. 
This bill will ensure that men and women who serve in our military have 
the opportunity for basic justice, basic civil liberties, and basic 
protection under the law.
  I want to start by recognizing the monumental advance toward military 
justice reform made during our Senate work week. The Independent Review 
Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military released their 
recommendations, which included removing the prosecution of sexual 
assault and related crimes from the chain of command. It is a historic 
sign of progress after decades of obstruction.

  The Secretary of Defense has agreed with the Commission's findings 
that the removal of sexual assault prosecutions from the chain of 
command and the professionalization of the military justice system 
would benefit survivors and in no way diminish good order and 
discipline. It is also a historic sign of progress that President Biden 
has endorsed all of these recommendations.
  After years--years--of pushing for these types of reforms, this 
change in thinking from our military and executive leadership is truly 
momentous. Every crime that the IRC reviewed, they recommended removing 
it from the chain of command. That is a clear recognition that the 
current military justice system is not capable of addressing the 
epidemic of sexual assault among our ranks and that it is not providing 
justice for our servicemembers.
  As President Biden said, ``This is the beginning, not the end of our 
work.'' While I welcome the IRC's recommendations, I am deeply 
heartened to see that Secretary Austin and President Biden both endorse 
the recommendations and will happily work with us to make them a 
reality. We also have to recognize that the IRC was provided a very 
limited task--to review only sexual assault and harassment in the 
military. No other crimes were under their purview. Unfortunately, they 
were also not asked to look at other serious crimes that are related, 
such as murder.
  We as a Congress have been tasked with a larger job. It is our job to 
ensure that the military writ large works for every servicemember. The 
recent scandals at Fort Hood, the murder of Vanessa Guillen, and the 
deep racial disparities in prosecutions have made it plain that the 
need for reform in the military justice system goes far beyond sexual 
assaults. Vanessa Guillen was murdered, and she was harassed. Serious 
crimes such as murder deserve the consideration of military lawyers who 
are trained with expertise, not commanders.
  For those who worry about the impact that this reform would have on 
command authority, I would point to the head of the IRC, the 
chairwoman, Lynn Rosenthal, who said:

       The IRC rejects the notion that, by removing legal 
     decisions about prosecution from the command structure, that 
     commanders have no role. It's simply not the case. Commanders 
     are responsible for the climates they create. They're 
     responsible for working to prevent sexual assault and sexual 
     harassment, and they're responsible for making sure that 
     victims are protected when they come forward to report. So, 
     the idea that they won't have an interest in solving this 
     problem if they are not making [a] technical, legal 
     [decision], we think, is simply false.

  The same logic extends to all serious crimes. Commanders will still 
be responsible for setting the culture that prevents them, for 
protecting victims, and for maintaining an interest in solving these 
problems even if they are not making these complex, technical decisions 
about whether or not a case should go to trial. And in a great number 
of these cases that do not go forward to trial, they come back to the 
commander for the commander to use his discretion--nonjudicial 
punishment, summary court-martial, or special court-martial--the many 
tools he still has.
  We must guarantee that we have a professional, unbiased system for 
all servicemembers. It is our constitutional duty to provide oversight 
and accountability over the Department of Defense. We are the authors 
of the military justice code. We are the ones who put it in place. It 
is Congress's duty to update it and to make sure it works. We can do 
that by taking this momentum and building upon it and passing the 
Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act this year. 
We have the votes to pass it in committee. We have the votes to pass it 
on the floor. This is an issue we have been fighting for and talking 
about and having hearings on for 8 years.
  I began calling for a full vote on the floor on this bill on May 24. 
Since then, an estimated 2,744 servicemembers will have been raped or 
sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious 
crimes. All of them deserve justice, and it is our responsibility to 
provide it.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in 
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the 
Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate 
equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I object to the Senator's request for the 
reasons that I have previously stated.
  As the Senator from New York acknowledged, on July 2, President Biden 
announced that he ``strongly supports'' the recommendations put forth 
by Secretary Austin based on the work of the Independent Review 
Commission that would reform how the military prosecutes sexual 
assault-related crimes. Subsequent to the President's statement, the 
administration forwarded to the committee their legislative proposals 
to implement this reform.
  I support and commend the President, the Secretary, and the IRC 
leadership and staff for their work, and I look forward to working with 
them and the administration and my colleagues, particularly my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, to enact this historic and 
momentous change to the Department of Defense.
  Sexual assault is an unconscionable crime and a pervasive problem in 
the military and in American society. While the military has taken 
steps to try to stop sexual assault in the ranks, it simply hasn't been 
enough. I strongly agree with the President's statement that ``sexual 
assault in the military is doubly damaging because it also shreds the 
unity and cohesion that is essential for the functioning of the U.S. 
military and to our national defense.''
  While this change will be important, enhancing prevention, education, 
and command climate and culture will also be vital. If this reform to 
the UCMJ is the only thing we do, then I think that it will not be 
successful on its own. We need to prevent these crimes, not simply 
prosecute them.
  I understand that my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, 
disagrees with the proposed scope of this reform. Nevertheless, I want 
to acknowledge her leadership on this issue. She has fought for 8 years 
for this reform, and that day, with respect to sexual assault, is 
coming. Indeed, just as a footnote, the legislation that is being 
advanced would include every crime incident to a sexual assault, so 
that if a

[[Page S4823]]

victim is subject not just simply to sexual assault but to other crimes 
in that incident, all those crimes are to be tried together. So the 
need to import crimes like murder and arson and other nonsexual related 
crimes is, in my view, not going to accomplish the goals that I think 
this Senate has been focused on, particularly over the last 6 months or 
so.
  I intend to include the administration's proposals in next week's 
markup at the annual Defense bill, subject to amendment. I think that 
is important to know--subject to amendment, that the UC as proposed 
would not allow amendments. It would not allow colleagues on the floor 
to come up and say: I have a better idea. We will do that in the 
committee, as we have always done it in the committee or at least tried 
to do it in the committee.
  I look forward to working with Senator Gillibrand and my other 
colleagues in the committee as we consider, debate, and vote on this 
and other proposals, but I still must reiterate my objection to the 
unanimous consent request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. First of all, our bill is entitled ``Military 
Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act,'' so, as the 
chairman has requested, there is a great deal of prevention in this 
bill. And I dare say, if the chairman was going to include all of the 
recommendations of the IRC, we would have a very strong base bill on 
which to work from, but I do not have the sense that that will be done. 
In fact, I do not have the sense that all the recommendations are being 
considered, so I intend to offer an amendment that encompasses all of 
the recommendations.
  Second, the reason why murder and other serious crimes must be 
included is because there are two challenges within the military: One, 
sexual assault cases are not handled properly, and unfortunately too 
few go to trial and too few end in conviction. The rate of going to 
trial and the rate of conviction has gone down.
  The second reason is, if you only allow sexual assault cases to have 
a proper review, you will further marginalize survivors of sexual 
assault, who, more often than not, are women who report those cases, 
because receiving special treatment and a special legal system will not 
create fairness within the military for them.
  Third, there is enormous evidence in the last 3 years of considerable 
racial bias against Black and Brown servicemembers. In the marines, if 
you are a Black man, you are up to 2.6 times more likely to be 
punished. That is a serious problem, and this is an issue that has been 
investigated for a long time.
  So I believe that the bright line of felonies, as our allies have 
already done in the UK, Israel, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and 
Australia, is meaningful because they did it for defendants' rights, 
they did it to professionalize their military justice system, and they 
did it to protect all servicemembers. Servicemembers in the U.S. 
military deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________