[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2066-S2070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     LEGISLATIVE SESSION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                         War Powers Resolution

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a War Powers Resolution 
that will be called up for a vote in the 5 o'clock hour, I believe, and 
I expect a number of other colleagues might take the floor. This is a 
resolution that I filed together with Senators Gallego and Schiff, and 
it is like other resolutions that I have filed in recent weeks to 
challenge the President's authority to take the United States to war 
without a vote of Congress.
  In this instance, this resolution deals with the country of Cuba. The 
United States has had a long, long history with Cuba that I needn't 
recount here, but suffice it to say, as a member of the Armed Services 
and Foreign Relations Committees, I have never heard the suggestion 
that Cuba poses an imminent security threat to the United States, and I 
think it is an accepted fact that there is currently no war 
authorization passed by Congress that would authorize military actions 
against Cuba.
  And so using the privileged provision of the War Powers Resolution, I 
have filed this, together with my colleagues, to say we should not be 
at war--we should not be engaged in hostilities with Cuba unless there 
is a congressional debate and vote.
  My argument is that, under the terms of the resolution, we are 
already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American 
force--primarily the Coast Guard but other assets as well--to engage in 
a very devastating economic blockade of the nation. If anyone were 
doing to the United States what we are doing to Cuba, we would 
definitely consider it an act of war.
  Let me describe what United States actions with respect to Cuba now 
mean to Cuban citizens. The blockade which went into effect and is 
using United States assets to block energy from being delivered to the 
island--because it does not have its own energy sources--has led to 
severe humanitarian crises across Cuba. Between January and March, 
nearly 100,000 scheduled surgical procedures were not carried out in 
hospitals in the country due to power limitations--power limitations 
brought on by the fuel blockade. More than 11,000 of these procedures 
were procedures that had been scheduled for children.
  Hospitals in Cuba are facing a particularly severe shortage of fuel 
since Cuban hospitals are run by the Cuban Government and President 
Trump has focused on curtailing shipments of energy destined for 
governmental use, and that governmental use includes hospitals and 
other healthcare providers. There has been significant press reporting 
about the humanitarian impact of this energy blockade upon the 
healthcare sector and medical shortages in Cuba.
  In addition to the canceling of hospital procedures, the shortage of 
energy and particularly the blocking of energy to the Cuban Government 
has meant the cutoff of running water in many urban areas because the 
water supply systems in Cuba rely upon electric pumps. More than a 
third of the Cuban population does not currently have access to clean 
water. Eighty-seven percent of the national water system's pumps rely 
on grid electricity to function. Trash has piled up because of lack of 
gas to run garbage trucks, and doctors say preventable deaths are 
rising as equipment fails, including the refrigeration that is 
necessary to maintain certain medications at appropriately low 
temperatures.
  In Cuba, daily power cuts in urban and rural areas have been lasting 
between 12 and 20 hours and, in some cases, exceeding 48 to 72 hours. 
Cuba has experienced multiple national blackouts in the months of March 
and April. Cuba is a nation that is very rural, and these cuts fall 
particularly heavily upon rural Cuba.
  In late March, the United States Coast Guard did allow a single 
Russian oil tanker carrying about 730,000 barrels of oil to pass 
through the blockade, providing Cuba with a few weeks of fuel. But in a 
country where the average monthly wage is about $15, gas is now nearly 
$40 a gallon. If you can find it, you probably can't afford it.
  The blockade of energy also affects food prices. They have risen more 
than 13 percent. Restrictions in rural electrical supply are projected 
to cause a 40-percent reduction in short-cycle crop yields--crops like 
vegetables, beans, and potatoes. Cold chain disruption has led to 
significant rates of spoilage for perishable foods.
  These are the kinds of things that happen when the United States 
decides, for no reason other than a desire to change the Cuban regime, 
that we will impose an energy blockade upon them. And again, if another 
country was doing this to the United States and causing the 
cancellation of medical procedures, especially for kids; the blackouts; 
the shutting down of municipality water supplies; and other significant 
challenges in the United States, we would consider it a hostility and 
even an act of war.
  It is interesting that there has not yet been a clear justification 
for what the United States is doing to Cuba other than a desire to 
change its regime. There is no argument that they have nuclear weapons 
or a ballistic missile program. There is no argument that they pose an 
imminent threat to the United States.
  Now, could we stand here and debate at some length and find some 
significant bipartisan support for the notion that the Cuban regime is 
a gross violator of human rights? I think we could. It has been a 
source of sadness that as the United States took some steps toward 
normalization of Cuba, that did not lead the Cuban Government to 
necessarily open up human rights or freedoms for its population. So, 
sure, we could have a debate about what we thought about the Cuban 
regime, but a desire to change the regime of another nation is not a 
sufficient reason for the United States to threaten and carry out 
military action that is devastating to the population.
  So given that regime change should not be a reason for war unless it 
is debated upon and embraced by Congress--and if we were going to say 
the regime change of a bad regime is a reason for the United States to 
go to war, we would have an awful lot of countries in the world where 
we would be debating about going to war. But given that there isn't an 
imminent threat to the United States from Cuba, I am glad to join with 
my colleagues and call up this War Powers Resolution.
  We just heard a powerful speech from King Charles III. We took the 
break to walk down to the House to hear the speech, and it was a 
powerful one. And one of the lines in the speech that got a lot of 
applause on all sides of the aisle--and I even noticed members of the 
President's own Cabinet standing to applaud a line--was his assertion 
that part of the origin of the American Declaration of Independence and 
the American independence project was to form a government whereby the 
legislature would have the power, as the article I branch, to stand up 
against overreaches by an Executive.
  An overreaching Executive, even in matters of war, is not something 
that is new to the United States. It is not something that is partisan. 
Executives of both parties, Whigs and Federalists, before there were 
Democrats and Republicans, often attempted to overreach. But what the 
Framers put into

[[Page S2067]]

the Constitution and that constitutional command as expressed in the 
statute that allows a Member of Congress to offer a war powers 
resolution is that when there are efforts by an Executive to go too 
far, then it is up to Congress to stand up and provide a check against 
any overreach.
  Abraham Lincoln, as a Congressperson, wrote a letter to his law 
partner grappling with this very issue, and he said the Framers of the 
Constitution were very focused on reducing what he called ``Kingly 
oppressions.'' And he said the most Kingly of all oppressions is the 
tendency of Executives to distract or impoverish their populations by 
taking them to war. And so, for that reason, we vested the question of 
war with the legislature.
  And so given that there are underway hostilities against Cuba that 
are causing significant humanitarian crises among children and others, 
innocent civilians in Cuba, and given that there has been no 
congressional authorization of these hostilities, I ask my colleagues 
to do what we were just urged to do by King Charles III and, in the 
best tradition of American Government, stand for the proposition that 
the legislature should provide a check against an overreaching 
Executive.
  Please vote in the affirmative on my resolution that we should not be 
engaged in hostilities or war with Cuba absent a congressional debate 
and vote.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to follow the comments of my 
colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I intend to join him 
in voting against any proceedings by the United States military, any 
action by our President to invade or occupy Cuba without authorization 
by the Senate, by the House, by the Congress of the United States.
  We just heard an address by King Charles III, and it is striking that 
he made a few simple and clear points. He delivered his remarks with 
humor, with engagement, and with respect, but he could not have been 
clearer that the fight for freedom in the world today is principally 
engaged in Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. And he asked 
us to continue our support with our NATO allies for Ukraine's brave 
fight and got a standing ovation.
  He also reminded us of the very beginnings of liberty in the British 
Commonwealth when the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede and spoke 
about the shared history of limitations on Executive power, on 
restrictions on overreach--first by a King; here, by a President.
  The sad truth is that this body has gradually handed away the power 
to control war and peace to increasingly overly powerful Presidents.
  I am grateful to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia for 
his repeated efforts to bring to this floor and to move forward 
clarifying amendments, important votes, to sunset an overused 
authorization for the use of military force that dated back 24, 25 
years, and to insist that in the current actions against Venezuela, 
against Iran, and potentially soon against Cuba that this body do its 
job: Stand up and take a vote, be on the record.
  Last, if I might, I am the senior Democrat on Defense Appropriations, 
and in repeated recent meetings with the highest levels of the 
leadership, civilian and military at the Pentagon, I have repeatedly 
raised concerns about the defense of Ukraine.
  Last year, the Pentagon sent us a budget. The President sent us a 
budget that requested nothing--zero--to reinforce our NATO allies in 
the Baltic States and to support Ukraine.
  Ukraine is, today, overwhelmingly funded by our NATO allies, by the 
Western European partners who have stepped forward and funded their 
acquisition of munitions in the United States and from across our 
partners and allies.
  Last year, they requested zero, and this Congress, on a bipartisan 
basis, inserted $400 million for the defense of Ukraine--$400 million 
out of $1.1 trillion last year.
  Once again, this year we received a budget with zero for Ukraine, and 
I have made it clear to the administration and their representatives, 
the Secretary and others, that if they don't demonstrate how they will 
spend the money appropriated by this body and signed into law by the 
President, they should not expect to receive one dime more.
  So as the question of how we will conduct ourselves going forward in 
Cuba, in Ukraine, in the Middle East is before this body, I intend to 
continue to vote for the Congress to take its constitutional role and, 
more than anything, for us to not hand away the power of the purse to 
an overreaching President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the resolution offered 
by Senator Kaine and others to prohibit the unauthorized use of 
American Armed Forces in hostilities against Cuba.
  Now, some may think this isn't a necessary concern, but to quote the 
President of the United States, our Commander in Chief:

       Cuba is next.

  This is urgent, and it requires immediate attention by the U.S. 
Senate.
  Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is the size of Tennessee. It has 
neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. 
And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and 
started illegally blockading oil shipments to Cuba from other 
countries, Cuba's economy was barely functioning.
  Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day across 
the entire island. Think of what that means for everyday life. It 
doesn't take much imagination. Just think about what it is like in our 
own communities when there is a power outage for a period of time.
  In Cuba, where it is sustained, it is catastrophic. Havana's streets 
are filled with smoldering garbage. The country is facing economic 
collapse, literally, and the United States is complicit in that 
economic collapse.
  So by causing Cuba's economy to fall apart and leaving millions of 
Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House 
hopes to create a national security ``emergency'' to justify regime 
change, including, if necessary, the use of military force.
  And we have seen that script play out before with the Trump 
administration.
  President Trump has said as much. He has repeatedly threatened to use 
force against Cuba. Without any legal justification, he said:

       [I]t may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly 
     takeover. Wouldn't really matter because they're really are 
     down to . . . fumes. They have no energy, they have no money.

  The reason Cuba is ``down to [the] fumes'' is due to its own 
government, its failed policies. And because of the U.S. oil blockade, 
both, together, have led to this catastrophic situation.
  But no American President, under any circumstances, ``friendly'' or 
``unfriendly,'' should threaten to take over another sovereign nation. 
It is Congress's responsibility to reject such a flagrant ``might makes 
right'' abuse of Executive power.
  There is plenty of blame to go around for how we got to this point. 
Cuba's leaders, whose priority is holding onto power, do systematically 
violate the rights of the Cuban people, and they align themselves--the 
Cuban leaders--with, ideologically, some of the world's worst regimes.
  Cuba's centralized economy has practically ruined the country, 
despite its tropical climate and abundance of rich farmland.
  For our part--we control our part--the United States has tried to 
overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by 
financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions 
with extraterritorial reach.
  So after 65 years of an embargo that has not achieved any of its 
goals but has exacerbated and tested the daily suffering of the Cuban 
people who are not our adversary, the United States and Cuba need to 
find a way to peacefully coexist.
  A few weeks ago, I outlined what I thought such an agreement would 
look like. I won't repeat that here, but at the very least, the 
President should, No. 1, remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of 
terrorism, which has no legal or factual basis and which no other 
country agrees with.
  And the President should pressure Congress to repeal the failed U.S. 
embargo so Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.

[[Page S2068]]

  And Cuba's leaders--and they have enormous responsibility here--
should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been an absolute 
disaster for the Cuban people. And the Cuban Government must release 
all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to 
express themselves freely and without fear of prosecution.
  Political and economic change in Cuba is long overdue. Neither is 
sufficient by itself. The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born 
after the 1959 revolution--they want leaders who accept the need for 
fundamental changes in how to govern with greater participation of the 
people, greater transparency, and greater freedom and real 
accountability.
  Rather than threats of a ``takeover,'' the United States should 
negotiate a solution with Cuba that puts U.S. national interests and 
the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first, not the interests 
of the Cuban Government or American billionaires.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kaine's resolution. The 
American people do not want to wake up in the morning to learn that we 
are at war with Cuba, and I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's 
leaders to take the steps I have outlined to finally put an end to the 
decades of hostility between us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, when I talk to people in Arizona, they 
tell me they want their politicians to focus on helping them afford 
healthcare, buy a home, put groceries on the table, and fill up the 
tank.
  Not once has anyone said to me: You know what we need? Another war.
  And yet, that is exactly what this administration keeps delivering, 
one conflict after another.
  Right after New Year's, Trump illegally invaded Venezuela with no 
plan for democratic transition. Less than 2 months later, he led us 
into a war with Iran with no justification or definition of what 
victory looks like.
  Now, 13 servicemembers are dead; we are deploying more troops 
overseas; and gas prices are up 40 percent as a direct result of 
Trump's failing foreign policy.
  But as if the disaster of the Iran war and the resulting spike in oil 
prices weren't enough, Trump is continuing to threaten to invade Cuba 
as well. What we have seen in the past 5 months tells us we can't just 
ignore these threats.
  Trump's go-fast-and-break-things approach doesn't work. When you rush 
into a war without a plan, people die. When you send servicemembers 
overseas with no clear justification, they come home broken. And we 
can't afford the consequences of that, not when it comes to American 
lives.
  Trump has zero understanding of what it means to make life-and-death 
decisions because he has never served a day in his life. It is not his 
or his friends' children he is sending to die; it is young working-
class Americans.
  I know. I served in Iraq with many of these men and women. Twenty-
three of them did not make it back. Their lives, the lives of our 
servicemembers, are what Trump is playing with right now.
  The American people are not asking for this. They want us to focus on 
building up our communities, not nation building abroad. They want us 
focused on building housing in Arizona, not bombing houses in Havana. 
They want us to lower the cost of healthcare and not condemn a 
generation of veterans to a lifetime of hospital visits. And they want 
us to make their lives more affordable, not spend their tax dollars on 
unnecessary wars.
  But instead of focusing on what the American people want, President 
Trump has decided instead to focus on satisfying the neocons in his 
circle, like Marco Rubio, who are always asking for a new war and who 
see every crisis as an opportunity to score political points in South 
Florida.
  Donald Trump, the man who ran on ``America First'' and ending forever 
wars has handed over the keys to the war hawks, and it is American 
families that are going to pay the price.
  This resolution is very clear: No unauthorized war in Cuba, and no 
more bypassing Congress. If military force is necessary, then Trump and 
Rubio need to come to Congress and make their case in full view of the 
American public and let the country decide if it is really in America's 
best interests.
  But the people I talk to in Arizona, the troops I have served with, 
and the families who have buried loved ones who didn't come back, they 
know the answer. They know what the final answer would be. It is: Do 
not do this. It is not in our interest, and it is not what America 
wants.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this War 
Powers Resolution to make clear that the United States will not be 
dragged into yet another conflict, this time with Cuba--a conflict that 
would not serve American interests and does not have authorization from 
this U.S. Congress.
  Americans are already paying the price for President Trump's illegal 
war against Iran--a war that has no end in sight, a war that is making 
us less safe and worse off. And, of course, before the war in Iran, we 
saw Trump's illegal act of war against Venezuela, where he put our 
troops in danger in order to grab Venezuela's oil for his billionaire 
buddies. The administration continues to carry out illegal, monthslong 
boat strikes in international waters, which have killed at least 185 
people since September. Now President Trump has also floated the idea 
of using force against our allies, like his scheme to seize Greenland, 
which, of course, is part of Denmark, which is part of the NATO 
alliance. And the list goes on and on and on.
  Our Constitution is explicit: The power to declare war rests with 
Congress--with the Senate and with the House--not with the President of 
the United States. Yet we are once again confronted with a situation 
where Trump appears ready to tear up our Constitution--a Constitution 
when he was once asked whether he had to abide by, he said: I don't 
know. And we are seeing that mindset in action every day.
  We have seen deeply alarming rhetoric and actions from the 
administration when it comes to Cuba. What began as economic warfare 
has now edged into open discussions of military intervention. President 
Trump himself has said:

       Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I 
     can do anything I want with it.

  But we all know that Cuba is not property to be acquired by Donald 
Trump, and military force is not supposed to be a tool for Presidential 
impulse or political theater. And no President--no President--has the 
legal authority to unilaterally send American troops into conflict 
starting a war. But Trump has shown again and again that he thinks he 
is above the law and above the Constitution.
  Many of us just joined the King of England, King Charles, where he 
talked about the Magna Carta and checks and balances. This President of 
the United States thinks he is a King and thinks he is not bound by 
checks and balances. Any of our colleagues who aid and abet him are 
complicit in undermining the Constitution of the United States--one 
that he has shown disdain for time and again.
  To understand why we are here, we need to look at the choices this 
administration and previous administrations have made and the 
consequences that have followed.
  President Trump's current policy on Cuba is not a total aberration; 
it is him and Secretary Rubio doubling down and putting on steroids 
over 65 years of a failed, bankrupt policy.
  Since 1960, Republicans and Democratic administrations alike have 
pursued a policy of isolation and economic pressure and strangulation 
toward Cuba. After 6\1/2\ decades, the promise of political change 
still has not been realized.
  You would think that when you keep doing something and don't get the 
result you want, you would do something different. Instead, we see the 
Trump administration doubling down and putting their foot on the gas of 
failed policies.
  I recall that under President Biden, the United States began to turn 
the tide. It began to take some positive steps. The Obama 
administration restored diplomatic relations, expanded travel, and made 
an effort to engage with Cuba in a way that had not been done in 
decades.

[[Page S2069]]

  I had a chance to see this newfound diplomacy up close. My first trip 
to Cuba was to visit an American called Alan Gross. He was part of an 
international development contractor with USAID, and he was a 
constituent of mine in Maryland.
  He was imprisoned by the Cuban Government for 5 years. I worked 
closely with the Obama administration to help secure his release and 
joined the bipartisan delegation that included Senator Leahy and 
Senator Flake at the time that ultimately brought Alan Gross home in 
2014.
  That breakthrough played a role in opening the door to a new chapter 
in U.S.-Cuban relations. At the time, we began to see some shoots of 
real progress and liberalization in the Cuban economy. The problems at 
hand were, of course, not solved overnight, but the light at the end of 
the tunnel was beginning to look bright, and it was clear that this new 
approach had real potential. But that chapter was short-lived, as 
President Trump in his first term reversed course, reimposing strict 
travel restrictions and tightening sanctions--back to the failed 
playbook of over 60 years.
  A diplomatic relationship cannot be repaired overnight--especially 
with two countries with decades of fraught history like the United 
States and Cuba--and the Biden administration failed to take meaningful 
steps to get us back on the course that the Obama administration had 
taken us, which brings us to where we are today, with the Trump 
administration not only reverting to their first-term policies but 
doubling down on this hostile, ineffective, and proven failure of an 
approach.
  The Trump administration has pursued an aggressive pressure campaign 
against Cuba: tightening restrictions, cutting off critical fuel 
supplies, and effectively imposing an oil blockade on the island--an 
oil blockade that is exhausting the country's supply of fuel, 
restricting both travel and daily life within the country while also 
crippling the Nation's healthcare system, resulting in preventable 
deaths. Here is a headline from the March 26 New York Times. It reads 
``Cuban Patients Are Dying Because of U.S. Blockade, Doctors Say.''
  The stated goal was to force political change in Havana, but months 
into the Trump administration's belligerent approach, it is clear they 
have not begun to achieve the intended result. Again, same old policy, 
no better results--in fact, worse. The Cuban authoritarian government 
remains fully in control. Instead, what we are seeing is the rapid 
deterioration of conditions for the people of Cuba.
  Across the island, families are living through prolonged blackouts 
and an energy crisis that has crippled infrastructure across the 
island. Without sufficient fuel, hospitals cannot function properly, 
schools and businesses are forced to close, and families are left to 
navigate daily life without the most basic necessities.
  The only change--the only change--that the United States has 
succeeded in forcing upon Cuba is a humanitarian crisis affecting 
millions of people, because of Trump and Rubio's reckless blockade that 
is punishing the Cuban people, not the Cuban regime.
  We have seen this approach before. We have seen it for 60 years. We 
know how it ends. The longer we continue down this path, the more 
severe the consequences will become--not for those in power but for the 
millions of people caught in the middle.
  That should force all of us to ask a critical question: What exactly 
is the Trump-Rubio strategy here?
  We see they don't have a strategy in Iran, and they clearly don't 
have a strategy here, because if the goal is to support the Cuban 
people, then it is failing--failing, failing, failing--because what we 
are seeing is yet another policy built on the assumption that maximum 
pressure will produce quick political change. Instead, it has produced 
maximum citizen and civilian suffering with minimal results.
  Now, instead of reconsidering this failed approach, the 
administration appears to be considering an even more dangerous step--
that of military escalation. Of course we want democracy and 
fundamental freedoms for the people of Cuba, but we have seen over 
decades that economic strangulation does not work, and we have learned 
the hard way in Afghanistan and now Iran that bombs don't turn 
dictatorships into democracies. Yet here we are with reports that the 
administration is considering yet another war that is not in this 
country's interest.
  Americans are asking for stability. They are asking for lower costs. 
The idea of launching another illegal, costly, regime-change war is 
completely out of step with what their hopes and aspirations are. Yet 
that is what this administration is pursuing even though Candidate 
Trump promised he would focus on bringing down prices and keeping us 
out of war.
  The American people are already bearing significant costs of the war 
in Iran--lives lost, treasure expended, making us less safe--and all of 
this not authorized by this Congress. And now, instead of bringing that 
conflict to an end, this administration is signaling it may open the 
door to yet another one in Cuba.
  We have to ask what gets crowded out when we have a President and a 
White House that are focused on getting Americans into war rather than 
on the economic well-being of the American people.
  We have a responsibility here to the American people to represent 
them and to act in their interests. And decisions of war and peace, 
whether it is Iran or Cuba or anywhere else, must be made with the 
involvement of the representatives of the American people. That is not 
just my sentiment; that is what is in the Constitution of the United 
States.
  So we have the opportunity today to get ahead of another bad decision 
by the Trump administration, another bad decision to drag us into an 
illegal war, and to do it now before that conflict begins instead of 
hoping we can end it once the fuse is lit. In fact, it is our duty--it 
is our duty--to uphold the Constitution and make clear that we will do 
our jobs here in the U.S. Senate.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to uphold our 
constitutional responsibilities and to vote in favor of this War Powers 
Resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the measure we are talking about 
is completely out of touch with the facts in Cuba, nor is it relevant 
to anything actually happening in Cuba right now.
  President Trump has never suggested we put troops on the ground in 
Cuba, so this entire effort is moot.
  The only reason I can think a Democrat would propose this is for a 
fundraising email showing how they are fighting President Trump tooth 
and nail.
  I want to note that elected Democrats have turned up violent rhetoric 
against this President in the last several years, resulting in yet 
another radicalized leftwinger attempting to assassinate President 
Trump on Saturday night. And my Democrat colleagues still refuse to 
fund paychecks for the Secret Service agents who stopped the shooter or 
for the ICE and Border Patrol agents protecting Americans lives. But 
since Democrats refuse to fix that problem they created, let's talk 
about the resolution before us today.
  I am from Florida. We probably have more Cuban Americans in Florida 
than any State in the country, and they have been unbelievably 
successful in our State. So I am really--I always love to talk about 
Cuba, and I am glad the Democrats want to talk about Cuba.
  Since the 1959 socialist revolution, the authoritarian dictatorship 
has refused to hold free and fair elections in Cuba. So there are no 
elections in Cuba. There is no duly elected President in Cuba. The 
Castro regime has killed Americans and its citizens, and they cozy up 
to our enemies--Russia, communist China, Iran, and Hezbollah.
  Democrats say they are the party of democracy, so where is their 
concern for the anti-democratic dictator operating 90 miles from the 
shore of Florida, 90 miles from the shore of the United States?
  Many Democrats--some in this Chamber--are embracing socialism and 
even embracing a violent socialist leader, Hasan Piker, that wants me 
murdered. He says I should be murdered; capitalists should be murdered; 
9/11--we deserved it; anti-Semitic; and he supports the regime in Cuba.
  Some Democrats have even gone to Cuba with Piker, attempting to 
whitewash the atrocities of the illegitimate,

[[Page S2070]]

communist regime. Now, when they went there, did they go to the prisons 
to see any political prisoners? Did they ask about any political 
prisoners? Did they try to get one political prisoner released? Not 
one. One Democrat Congresswoman even said after her trip that ``Cuba 
has a remarkable public health system.'' If you talk to political 
prisoners and you talk to their families, that is not exactly what they 
would tell you.
  Some Democrats say they want socialism. Where has that succeeded? 
Nowhere. It results in misery and death for everyone but the regime 
leaders. Everyplace that has tried, it has always failed, and the only 
people that succeed are the regime leaders.
  Right now--right now--for decades, Cuba has been unjustly imprisoning 
hundreds of political prisoners just for demanding elections and 
complaining that the regime is failing to provide electricity. There is 
a 6-year-old boy in prison right now because he complained his family 
didn't have electricity. Have I heard one of my Democratic colleagues 
say ``Oh, that is wrong''?
  When they say that under Obama, things were better, oh, did all the 
political prisoners get released? No.
  There is a photo right here. What year do you think this was taken? 
Do you think it was taken during the Second World War at a 
concentration camp, a Holocaust survivor? Do you think it was maybe 
from a Soviet prison?
  What year do you think, Mr. President? What is your guess as far as 
the year this was taken?
  This was taken just a few miles from the Florida shore, probably less 
than 100 miles from our shore, just a few weeks ago.
  This individual--his name is Alexander Diaz Rodriguez. If you look at 
the before-he-went-to-prison picture, he doesn't look 30 years old. But 
he is a political prisoner. He was tortured, starved, isolated. He was 
denied this unbelievable healthcare system in Cuba even though he has 
cancer--all because he opposed the socialist regime. Not one of my 
Democratic colleagues here, not one of my Democratic colleagues who 
went down to Cuba did one thing to get him out of prison.
  This is the misery of the people of Cuba. This is the face of the 
misery of the people of Cuba.
  The President of Cuba just had an interview with mainstream media. 
Did not ask one question about the political prisoners. Didn't ask any 
of these things.
  A lot of people never want to look at these pictures, never want to 
post these. I am going to look at this, and I am going to talk about 
this as long as possible. We all should be thinking about, this is the 
face of the regime in Cuba, and when you go support the regime in Cuba, 
you are supporting what they are doing to an individual like Alexander.
  Democrats in this Chamber will choose to oppose President Trump but 
not Cuba's illegitimate, communist dictator, Miguel Diaz-Canel.
  The real reason we are discussing this is what one of my Democratic 
colleagues said. My Democratic colleague said he plans to keep 
introducing these resolutions just to criticize President Trump, waste 
our time and ask ``Have you seen enough?'' One of my Democratic 
colleagues even admitted that on national television.
  But again, President Trump has never said that he wants to put boots 
on the ground. I don't think any of my Republican colleagues have said 
it. Even Lindsey Graham has not said it.
  So this resolution is defending the regime that is oppressing people 
like Alexander Diaz Rodriguez.
  I will ask my Democratic colleagues to take a look at this picture. 
Look at this picture, and think of what that regime is doing. This is 
what the Cuban regime is doing to the people right now.
  So, to my Democrat colleagues, have you seen enough? Have you seen 
enough to say this has to stop?
  President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and 
democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can 
to support him. This President has never said he wants to put boots on 
the ground.
  This is a complete waste of our time, and it is a complete insult to 
Cubans in Cuba and to Cubans in my State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________