Floor SpeechNeutral2026-04-28

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

HealthcareTaxesEnvironmentForeign PolicyDefenseTradeCrime & Justice

Context

On 2026-04-28, Senator Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY) delivered a floor speech titled "DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NO" in the Senate. The speech addressed healthcare and also covered taxes, the environment. It referenced legislation including S2070, S2073, S2071, among other bills.

Full Text

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 74 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2070-S2073] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am about to make a motion with respect to the War Powers Resolution, but I understand there will be a point of order offered that is not debatable. So I just want to say that my understanding is that the point of order will suggest that what is currently being engaged in, in Cuba, is not hostilities. The War Powers Resolution clearly contemplates a resolution being within the contemplation of the body of hostilities that are ongoing or are imminent because Congress wanted an ability for Congress to stop a war before it started, and that was contemplated in the War Powers Resolution. I would also point out that the United States is using force to block energy from going to Cuba, and that has led to the cancelation of 100,000 surgeries in hospitals, including 11,000 for children. It has led to massive power blackouts. It has led to the unavailability of clean water because water systems depend upon electric pumps. My argument would be, if anyone were doing that to the United States and affecting our citizens in that way, we would certainly view that as hostilities that we would want to do everything we could to stop. With that, Mr. President, pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act for fiscal years 1984 and 1985--that is 50 U.S.C., section 1546(a)--and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 124. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to discharge S.J. Res. 124 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I just want to say I am from Florida, and I probably have more Cuban Americans in my State than anywhere else in this country. This is really important. The Cuban regime has just been despicable. They have killed Americans, and they have destroyed the lives of Cubans for decades. So this has to change. Point of Order Mr. President, I make a point of order that this joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities. Vote on Point of Order The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair submits the question to the Senate for its decision. The question is, Is the point of order well taken? Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr.Tuberville). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr.Warner) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.] YEAS--51 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Cramer [[Page S2071]] Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fetterman Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Wicker Young NAYS--47 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Paul Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Tuberville Warner The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47. The point of order is well-taken. The motion to discharge falls. The Senator from Louisiana. Tribute to Rebecca Streidel and Charlie Kay Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today are two of my interns that I have enjoyed working with, Ms. Rebecca Streidel and Mr. Charlie Kay. And I wanted to--also with me--he is not a summer intern. He is one of my permanent colleagues Mr. John Lowery. But I want to thank Rebecca and Charlie for working with me and for their good work. It has been a pleasure, and I hope you learned a lot. Thank you for being part of our team. White House Correspondents' Association Dinner Shooting Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of subjects today. First, I thought it would be appropriate to make a comment about the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night. I want to be clear, I was not there, so I don't know whether that helps my perspective or hurts it. But I was at home watching the NBA playoffs. The Timberwolves won, by the way. I am sorry it happened Saturday night. I am glad no one got hurt. I think what happened is as straightforward as it is tragic. An overeducated, underemployed, self-righteous punk from California who thinks he is smarter and more virtuous than the American people and who thinks if you disagree with him, you are not only in error, you are in sin and deserve to die, tried to crash the function and assassinate the President and some members of his administration. Many members of our media--and, look, I am glad no one was hurt. I said that, but I want to emphasize that. Some members of the media will portray him as a victim. They will say his mom or daddy didn't love him enough, or maybe he was just mixed up or confused or had a mental defect. They can say what they want. But I believe in free will and responsibility. And this punk was responsible for his actions, and he is going to be punished. And he, frankly, should be punished. I want to also say a word about security. Look, we are going to hold hearings. We love to hold hearings on Capitol Hill. That is one of our favorite things to do. And there are going to be hearings held about the security provided by our Secret Service and others. I am not saying those hearings shouldn't be held. I am not a security expert. But I want to thank the members of law enforcement who prevented what could have been a very serious tragedy Saturday night. I am pretty familiar with the Washington Hilton hotel, and the truth is, those who are also familiar with it know that this guy never got close. He was on a different floor. He never made it to the right floor, and that is because of our brave women and men who provide security. In fact, I thought our security showed great restraint. I was frankly very surprised that this punk didn't end up like a piece of Swiss cheese. Mr. President, could I ask my colleagues here to hold it down for a minute? Maybe they could take their discussions off the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order on the floor? Mr. KENNEDY. I know they have got work to do. But I have got work to do too, and I can't hear myself think here. Joint Meeting of Congress Mr. President, let me say a word about King Charles. King Charles spoke to a joint session of Congress today. I thank him so much for coming. He was eloquent. He was charming. He was funny. He talked about the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. And we do have a special relationship, and I hope it can continue. And I want to come back to the King's visit. In preparation for the King's visit and the King's speech, I read an article, in particular, in The Economist magazine. I read The Economist magazine, anyway, every week. In my opinion--I have read it cover to cover. It is really--some call it a newspaper, but it really is a magazine. I have read it cover to cover for 25 years. It covers the world. I have always enjoyed the reporting because it is very in depth, and it is very factual. Just about every author of every article offers his or her opinion. But it is subtle, and it is nuanced. And usually they offer their opinion after presenting both sides of the story. It hurts me to say--it disappoints me to say--that, in the past year, The Economist has really changed. Their reporting has crossed the line, in my opinion, and they are so angry at the President and angry at America that it has seeped into their reporting. And I really regret that. I am going to keep reading, but I really regret that they have given in to their appetitive desires and lost some of their objectivity. And the article, in particular, that I read, I read it on the plane. I don't remember whether I was going home or coming up. But the article that I read in preparation for King Charles' visit was entitled: ``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.'' ``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.'' And this was the question that The Economist was asking: Should Britain, the United Kingdom, which we do have a special relationship-- should the United Kingdom keep hugging America or embrace Europe? Like it was a buffet, like they have a choice--and the article startled me. The article also points out--and this also surprised me and disappointed me--that the author of the article pointed it out, almost gleefully, that today, when you poll the American people and ask th

Referenced legislation: SJRES124, SJRES124

View original source →

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 74 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2070-S2073] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am about to make a motion with respect to the War Powers Resolution, but I understand there will be a point of order offered that is not debatable. So I just want to say that my understanding is that the point of order will suggest that what is currently being engaged in, in Cuba, is not hostilities. The War Powers Resolution clearly contemplates a resolution being within the contemplation of the body of hostilities that are ongoing or are imminent because Congress wanted an ability for Congress to stop a war before it started, and that was contemplated in the War Powers Resolution. I would also point out that the United States is using force to block energy from going to Cuba, and that has led to the cancelation of 100,000 surgeries in hospitals, including 11,000 for children. It has led to massive power blackouts. It has led to the unavailability of clean water because water systems depend upon electric pumps. My argument would be, if anyone were doing that to the United States and affecting our citizens in that way, we would certainly view that as hostilities that we would want to do everything we could to stop. With that, Mr. President, pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act for fiscal years 1984 and 1985--that is 50 U.S.C., section 1546(a)--and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 124. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to discharge S.J. Res. 124 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I just want to say I am from Florida, and I probably have more Cuban Americans in my State than anywhere else in this country. This is really important. The Cuban regime has just been despicable. They have killed Americans, and they have destroyed the lives of Cubans for decades. So this has to change. Point of Order Mr. President, I make a point of order that this joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities. Vote on Point of Order The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair submits the question to the Senate for its decision. The question is, Is the point of order well taken? Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr.Tuberville). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr.Warner) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.] YEAS--51 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Cramer [[Page S2071]] Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fetterman Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Wicker Young NAYS--47 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Paul Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Tuberville Warner The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47. The point of order is well-taken. The motion to discharge falls. The Senator from Louisiana. Tribute to Rebecca Streidel and Charlie Kay Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today are two of my interns that I have enjoyed working with, Ms. Rebecca Streidel and Mr. Charlie Kay. And I wanted to--also with me--he is not a summer intern. He is one of my permanent colleagues Mr. John Lowery. But I want to thank Rebecca and Charlie for working with me and for their good work. It has been a pleasure, and I hope you learned a lot. Thank you for being part of our team. White House Correspondents' Association Dinner Shooting Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of subjects today. First, I thought it would be appropriate to make a comment about the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night. I want to be clear, I was not there, so I don't know whether that helps my perspective or hurts it. But I was at home watching the NBA playoffs. The Timberwolves won, by the way. I am sorry it happened Saturday night. I am glad no one got hurt. I think what happened is as straightforward as it is tragic. An overeducated, underemployed, self-righteous punk from California who thinks he is smarter and more virtuous than the American people and who thinks if you disagree with him, you are not only in error, you are in sin and deserve to die, tried to crash the function and assassinate the President and some members of his administration. Many members of our media--and, look, I am glad no one was hurt. I said that, but I want to emphasize that. Some members of the media will portray him as a victim. They will say his mom or daddy didn't love him enough, or maybe he was just mixed up or confused or had a mental defect. They can say what they want. But I believe in free will and responsibility. And this punk was responsible for his actions, and he is going to be punished. And he, frankly, should be punished. I want to also say a word about security. Look, we are going to hold hearings. We love to hold hearings on Capitol Hill. That is one of our favorite things to do. And there are going to be hearings held about the security provided by our Secret Service and others. I am not saying those hearings shouldn't be held. I am not a security expert. But I want to thank the members of law enforcement who prevented what could have been a very serious tragedy Saturday night. I am pretty familiar with the Washington Hilton hotel, and the truth is, those who are also familiar with it know that this guy never got close. He was on a different floor. He never made it to the right floor, and that is because of our brave women and men who provide security. In fact, I thought our security showed great restraint. I was frankly very surprised that this punk didn't end up like a piece of Swiss cheese. Mr. President, could I ask my colleagues here to hold it down for a minute? Maybe they could take their discussions off the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order on the floor? Mr. KENNEDY. I know they have got work to do. But I have got work to do too, and I can't hear myself think here. Joint Meeting of Congress Mr. President, let me say a word about King Charles. King Charles spoke to a joint session of Congress today. I thank him so much for coming. He was eloquent. He was charming. He was funny. He talked about the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. And we do have a special relationship, and I hope it can continue. And I want to come back to the King's visit. In preparation for the King's visit and the King's speech, I read an article, in particular, in The Economist magazine. I read The Economist magazine, anyway, every week. In my opinion--I have read it cover to cover. It is really--some call it a newspaper, but it really is a magazine. I have read it cover to cover for 25 years. It covers the world. I have always enjoyed the reporting because it is very in depth, and it is very factual. Just about every author of every article offers his or her opinion. But it is subtle, and it is nuanced. And usually they offer their opinion after presenting both sides of the story. It hurts me to say--it disappoints me to say--that, in the past year, The Economist has really changed. Their reporting has crossed the line, in my opinion, and they are so angry at the President and angry at America that it has seeped into their reporting. And I really regret that. I am going to keep reading, but I really regret that they have given in to their appetitive desires and lost some of their objectivity. And the article, in particular, that I read, I read it on the plane. I don't remember whether I was going home or coming up. But the article that I read in preparation for King Charles' visit was entitled: ``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.'' ``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.'' And this was the question that The Economist was asking: Should Britain, the United Kingdom, which we do have a special relationship-- should the United Kingdom keep hugging America or embrace Europe? Like it was a buffet, like they have a choice--and the article startled me. The article also points out--and this also surprised me and disappointed me--that the author of the article pointed it out, almost gleefully, that today, when you poll the American people and ask th Referenced legislation: SJRES124, SJRES124