[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 156 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5713-S5723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020, AND HEALTH EXTENDERS ACT OF 2019--
                                Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4378, which the clerk 
will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:15 
p.m. will be divided in the usual form.
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The majority leader is 
recognized.


                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, exactly 1 year ago, the administration 
announced the most significant trade deal in a generation--a landmark 
agreement with Mexico and Canada to strengthen two of our Nation's key 
trading relationships.
  The USMCA is the most consequential update of trade policy on this 
continent in a quarter century. It is a huge opportunity to notch new 
pro-American policy victories and keep our North American neighbors 
close while we tackle other challenges, such as China.
  Here we are, months after all three countries' leaders signed the 
agreement, and we are still waiting on the House Democrats to let it 
move forward. Mexico has already passed it, and Canada is waiting on 
our move. The Senate is ready and eager to ratify it, but the Senate 
can't go first. The clock is ticking.
  Month after month, even as the House Democrats have continually made 
vague statements that they support the USMCA and want to see it passed, 
we have yet to see any real progress. Canada, Mexico, and millions of 
Americans are waiting for Speaker Pelosi to remember that serving the 
public interest requires more than just picking fights with the 
President; it actually entails addressing the people's business.
  Mexico and Canada are vital partners at every level of the U.S. 
economy. They provide enormous, growing markets for American-made 
products. They, together, buy more than $500 billion in U.S. goods and 
services every single year. It is a half-a-trillion-dollar export 
market. Every State, every industry, every corner of our country is 
involved.
  For 90 percent of America's manufacturing sectors, Mexico or Canada 
ranks as the No. 1 or No. 2 export destination. For American farmers 
and producers, our two neighbors buy almost two-thirds of all the 
agricultural exports we sell to all of our free-trade partners 
combined. We aren't just talking about Big Business. Tens of thousands 
of small- and medium-sized businesses count on their Mexican or 
Canadian customers to succeed.
  These realities affect Americans' real lives. In the last 25 years, 
as trade with Mexico and Canada has quadrupled, 12 million U.S. jobs 
have come to depend on cross-border commerce. Many of

[[Page S5714]]

those jobs belong to workers in Kentucky, where our biggest industries, 
from auto manufacturing to bourbon production, depend on this export 
economy.
  With so much at stake, the American people deserve to have an 
excellent trade deal in place, one that levels the playing field for 
American workers and reduces the incentives to ship American jobs to 
Mexico and one that expands American farmers' and manufacturers' access 
to these neighboring markets.
  This is exactly what the USMCA delivers. It upgrades the playing 
field for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and job creators. It 
builds on the pro-growth, pro-innovation policies that encourage their 
success here at home with an upgraded, modern runway to markets beyond 
our borders.
  The USMCA looks specifically at key sectors where outdated rules or 
exploitive practices threaten Americans' job security and hurt 
homegrown industries. It strengthens intellectual property rights to 
protect American innovation; it upgrades our digital trade policy; and 
the USMCA wins greater market access for U.S. exporters, with there 
being opportunities to sell more dairy and poultry into Canada, a 
better playing field for auto parts and investment, and enforceable 
labor standards so hard-working Americans aren't unfairly priced out of 
their jobs.
  What does all of this add up to? I will tell you. According to the 
independent U.S. International Trade Commission, the USMCA would 
generate more than $68 billion in GDP growth and create 176,000 jobs 
right here in the United States.
  Frankly, there is very little else we could do in Congress that would 
deliver this kind of boost to American prosperity and brighten 
prospects for so many American families. It is also a bipartisan deal. 
It includes changes that the Democrats have themselves clamored for and 
for which the administration has bent over backward to accommodate 
their concerns.
  Here we are, a year after all three countries announced the deal, and 
the Democrats' heel-dragging continues. Speaker Pelosi keeps saying she 
supports the agreement in the abstract, but the drip, drip, drip of 
small objections and stalling tactics keeps on coming. Even as Speaker 
Pelosi's moderate Members publicly beg her to pass this deal, it is 
almost as though she is looking for reasons to duck it.
  Well, I certainly hope not, for 176,000 American jobs hang in the 
balance, tens of billions of dollars of new prosperity, and our 
relationships with two of our closest allies that have already taken 
difficult steps to get to yes on this agreement and whose support we 
need to preserve a system of free and fair trade from China's 
aggressive efforts to rewrite the rules on its own terms.
  The United States of America needs this deal. American workers and 
small businesses need this deal. The time for excuses is over. The 
USMCA needs to move this fall, and that can't happen until the House 
Democrats stop blocking an enormous win for our country.


                        Tribute to Ileana Garcia

  Mr. President, on a totally different matter, as majority leader, I 
am especially grateful for opportunities to offer the Senate's thanks 
to the remarkable men and women who work tirelessly to preserve and 
protect this great institution.
  On Monday, we will be saying a bittersweet goodbye to a particularly 
irreplaceable member of the Senate's family who has worked alongside us 
for 22 years.
  Ileana Garcia was born in Cuba and raised in Puerto Rico. She started 
working for the Secretary of the Senate in September 1997 as a project 
accountant.
  Since then she has built a remarkable success story here in this 
institution, rising through the ranks of financial management and 
becoming financial clerk of the Senate in 2014.
  But with Ileana, it is not just about the impressive milestones. It 
is about the outsized impact she has had on this place and so many 
people--from the heavy lifting of getting a new financial system online 
in the late 1990s to helping offices navigate healthcare transitions 
and government shutdowns, to the everyday challenges that come with a 
big complicated payroll like the U.S. Senate's.
  She did it all with professionalism and attention to detail. At 
times, my own staff observed that she was so attentive and so quick to 
respond to their questions that they wondered if she was detailed 
exclusively to handle our office. Of course she wasn't. That is just 
the job she does.
  But professionalism and excellence aren't the only things Ileana 
brought into the office every day. Everyone observes that she also 
brought a very big heart. Patience, discretion, compassion, and an 
unflagging smile have been her calling cards. That was the case when 
she arrived 22 years ago, and it remains the case today as she prepares 
to depart as one of the Senate's senior-most administrative staffers.
  So we are really sorry to lose somebody of Ileana's caliber, but we 
know she is excited to spend more time on Planet Garcia, which I 
understand is what she and her beloved husband Ariel of 30 years call 
their clan, including their three sons. And I understand there might be 
some more time for competitive domino tournaments--not that she 
apparently needs any more practice.
  So I know that all of my colleagues will join me today in wishing 
Ileana Garcia the very best and thanking her for a job so well done.
  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.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, after Speaker Pelosi decided to open a 
formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday evening, there have been several 
developments. Yesterday, the President released a memorandum of 
conversation of his July 25 call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. In 
plain text--plain text--no ands, ifs, or buts, the President pressured 
the leader of Ukraine to investigate one of his leading political 
rivals, confirming public reports.
  Yesterday, as well, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees 
received the official whistleblower complaint that precipitated this 
series of events. I read the complaint yesterday afternoon and came 
away more concerned--even more concerned than when I had read the 
memorandum of the President's conversation.
  This morning, the House Intelligence Committee made public the 
declassified portion of the complaint and the intelligence community's 
inspector general's cover letter. That was the correct decision. The 
American people have a right to read the whistleblower's complaint for 
themselves, and I hope that they will.
  The whistleblower's complaint begins:

       In the course of my official duties, I have received 
     information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the 
     President of the United States is using the power of his 
     office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 
     2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among others 
     things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of 
     the President's main domestic political rivals.

  Those are his words.
  The complaint goes on to describe specific, deliberate maneuvers by 
White House lawyers and officials to lock down records of the 
Presidential communications in question, including and especially ``the 
official word-for-word transcript of the President's phone call with 
President Zelensky.''
  The whistleblower complaint contains allegations of underlying 
crimes, a campaign of soliciting the interference of a foreign 
government in an American election, and using the power of an official 
government position for personal and political gain, as well as many 
allegations of an attempted coverup.
  If this was all so innocent, why did so many officials in the White 
House, in the Justice Department, and elsewhere make such large efforts 
to prevent it from being made public?
  Both sets of allegations are said to have multiple witnesses and 
multiple co-collaborators. If confirmed, the allegations contained in 
the whistleblower

[[Page S5715]]

complaint are nothing short of explosive. The complaint unquestionably 
validated Speaker Pelosi's decision to open a formal impeachment 
inquiry into these matters.
  We are living in an incredibly delicate time for our democracy. We 
have a responsibility now to corroborate the facts in the 
whistleblower's complaint, solicit testimony from those involved, and 
pursue the relevant avenues of inquiry that arise.
  We have a responsibility to consider the facts that emerge squarely 
and with the best interests of our country, not our party, in our 
hearts. We have a responsibility not to rush to final judgment or 
overstate the case, not to let ourselves be ruled by passion but by 
reason. For if the House, at the end of its inquiry, sees fit to accuse 
the President of impeachable offenses, we in the Senate will act as 
jury. Our role as the solemn jurors of democracy demands that we place 
fidelity to country and fidelity to our Constitution above all else.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, on the Appropriations Committee, the business of the 
American people and the responsibilities of Congress do not pause while 
the House prepares to formally begin an impeachment inquiry. Today, for 
example, the Senate must pass a continuing resolution to keep the 
government open through the end of November and give appropriators time 
to complete the 12 appropriations bills.
  I expect the continuing resolution will pass this morning and head to 
the President's desk. That is the easy part. The hard part is getting a 
bipartisan appropriations process back on track here in the Senate.
  Senate Republicans unilaterally departed from our bipartisan 
negotiations earlier this month by proposing to divert as much as $12 
billion from military construction and health programs to the 
President's border wall. Obviously that was a nonstarter with 
Democrats, and the Republican leader and the leaders of the 
Appropriations Committee on the Republican side had to know that. As 
yesterday's vote for the national emergency declaration showed, it is a 
nonstarter with a double-digit number of Republicans as well.
  Now that Republican leaders have shown the President they tried to 
get his wall again, now that the Senate has taken two proxy votes on 
the wall again this work period, neither of which came close to 
passing, it is time for Leader McConnell, Chairman Shelby, and our 
Republican colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to sit down with 
Democrats and get a bipartisan process moving again.


                      Nomination of Eugene Scalia

  Mr. President, finally, on the Scalia nomination, today the Senate 
will consider the nomination of Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of 
Labor. Typical of the Trump administration, Mr. Scalia's nomination is 
a slap to the face of labor because Mr. Scalia's life work has been 
utterly opposed to the mission of the agency to which he is nominated. 
He has sided repeatedly with the large corporate interests against 
working people.
  If any working person doubts that President Trump does not have their 
interests at heart, look at who he has nominated. This guy shouldn't 
even make it for Secretary of Commerce, let alone Secretary of Labor, 
which is supposed to defend and protect the working people of America.
  President Trump could have chosen a card-carrying union member for 
the job. He could have chosen someone who understands the needs of 
workers and unions, the history of the labor movement, and the 
established right of workers to collectively bargain for better wages 
and safer conditions. Instead, President Trump nominated Mr. Scalia, a 
corporate lawyer who has spent his entire career protecting the 
interests of CEOs, big corporations, and the wealthy elite--not 
workers, not labor. Worse, he has proactively fought to weaken worker 
protections. He has opposed minimum wage increases and even opposed 
protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a disgrace.
  My guess is that if every working person knew Mr. Scalia's record and 
that President Trump nominated him, Mr. Trump would hardly get the vote 
of a worker. This shows who President Trump is. This shows who our 
Republican colleagues are. They talk about the rights of workers but 
vote for somebody--I hope they won't, but in all likelihood, they will 
vote for somebody who is anti-worker up and down in the very bones of 
his body.
  Mr. Scalia is part of a larger pattern. President Trump has claimed 
to be a champion for working Americans, but he has filled our 
government with millionaires and CEOs and folks like Scalia who work 
for them with proven records of putting corporate interests before 
workers' interests. Anyone who thinks President Trump is a friend of 
the working person should look at Scalia's nomination.
  The Republican majority, rather than use its advice and consent 
powers to check the President when he does the wrong thing, rolls over 
and approves these nominees.
  Do all of these Republicans here oppose the Americans with 
Disabilities Act? Do all of these Republicans oppose increasing the 
minimum wage? Well, if you are against those kinds of things, vote for 
him. But we have gotten a lot of doubletalk, people who say they are 
for those things and then vote for nominees who oppose them and rip 
them apart.
  We should not confirm Mr. Scalia as Secretary of Labor, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                        Hispanic Heritage Month

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are a proud nation of immigrants and 
have benefited from the diversity of ideas and cultures that have come 
from around the world to experience the freedoms that we enjoy in the 
United States of America.
  September 15 through October 15 is Hispanic Heritage Month and a time 
to especially celebrate the traditions and contributions of the tens of 
millions of Hispanic and Latino Americans across our country.
  Texas is home to more than 11 million Hispanic Americans. Some have 
lived here for generations, and others have contributed to the recent 
rapid growth of the Lone Star State.
  Throughout our State's history, we have benefited from the leadership 
of people like Dr. Hector Garcia, a surgeon, a decorated World War II 
veteran, and a civil rights advocate. He founded the American GI Forum 
to ensure that veterans receive equal benefits and care regardless of 
their race or ethnicity. He was an ardent advocate for equal 
educational opportunities, and his motto was ``Education is our 
freedom, and freedom should be everybody's business.''
  Dr. Garcia became the first Mexican American to serve as the 
Ambassador to the United Nations, representing our country on the world 
stage. President Ronald Reagan later bestowed upon him the Presidential 
Medal of Freedom. His legacy is a reminder of what a single person can 
accomplish in the face of adversity, if only they have the courage to 
fight for what is right.
  Today, Texas is proud to have incredible Hispanic-American leaders 
across our State, including Ruth Hughs, who last month was sworn in as 
our secretary of state, and people like Justice Eva Guzman, who is the 
first Hispanic woman to serve on the Texas Supreme Court.
  There are incredible organizations, such as the Hispanic chambers of 
commerce, that advocate for Hispanic-owned small businesses that are 
vital to our economy. There is also the League of United Latin American 
Citizens--or, as we know it, LULAC--that fights to improve 
opportunities for Hispanic Americans, particularly when it comes to 
education.

  Hispanic leaders can be found in city halls, board rooms, and 
communities throughout our State and are improving our State in big 
ways and small ones as well.
  I have the honor of representing 28 million Texans--and it is growing 
by about 1,000 people a day, but nearly 40 percent of them identify as 
Hispanic.
  When Texans come to Washington, they have the opportunity to visit 
the museums that hold some of the most important stories and artifacts 
from our Nation's history. In recent years, we have made two very 
important additions to the Smithsonian Institution with the National 
Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African 
American History and

[[Page S5716]]

Culture. But it is time for another addition.
  Earlier this year, I introduced the National Museum of the American 
Latino Act, which would authorize the Smithsonian Institution to create 
a museum honoring America's Latinos. This has been a work in progress 
since 2003, when a bill was introduced to study the creation of a 
museum. The process took a step forward in 2008, when a Commission was 
established to study the viability of such a museum and, again, when 
that Commission released a report detailing the feasibility of the 
project.
  This legislation will take the work that has been done up to this 
point and finally put into motion the process of establishing a Latino 
museum. As of this week, we have 200 cosponsors on the House companion 
legislation and nearly 20 bipartisan cosponsors here in the Senate. 
Bicameral, bipartisan support demonstrates that the time has come to 
turn the dream of this museum into a reality.
  Hispanic Americans have made innumerable contributions to our 
country, and these stories deserve a brick and mortar home here in 
Washington, DC, in our Nation's Capital.
  Our State and our Nation are stronger, smarter, and more inclusive 
because of the contributions of generations of Hispanic Americans. So I 
am glad to spend this month reflecting on the work they have done and 
celebrating the heritage that is uniquely woven into the fabric of the 
United States of America.
  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.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the past 2 weeks have provided a kind of 
microcosm of the Democrat Party since the 2016 election--a combination 
of unhinged partisanship and a radical shift to the far left.
  In the past 2 weeks, we have seen Democrats call for not one but two 
impeachments--Justice Kavanaugh's and the President's--and introduce 
another socialist-inspired, government-run approach to healthcare, this 
time on the issue of prescription drugs.
  First, there were the calls to impeach Justice Kavanaugh based on yet 
another vague rumor. It quickly became glaringly obvious that there was 
no substance to the rumor. The alleged victim apparently has zero 
memory of the alleged behavior, but that didn't give Democrats any 
pause. It was right on to the next rushed impeachment proposal.
  On Tuesday, the Speaker of the House announced that she was opening 
an impeachment inquiry into the President. Never mind that the 
President had declared he would make public the transcript of the phone 
call in question. Apparently, she couldn't take the time to wait. After 
all, as the leader pointed out on the floor this week, Democrats have 
been looking to impeach the President since the moment he was elected.
  For Democrats, impeachment is not something to be gravely considered 
as an answer to serious crimes; it is a political weapon they hope to 
use to fix the fact that they didn't get their way in the last 
Presidential election. Democrats' calls for impeachment have come so 
thick and fast over the past couple of years, it would be difficult to 
trust them to conduct an impeachment investigation if there ever were a 
serious reason to consider one. They have made it absolutely clear that 
they have no objectivity at all.
  In addition to poisonous partisanship, the other thing that has 
characterized the Democratic Party since the 2016 election is a rapid 
swing to the extreme left. Last week, Speaker Pelosi introduced the 
latest addition to the socialist agenda Democrats have been laying out 
over the past year--a prescription drug bill that abandons the free 
market and competition that have enabled the United States to lead the 
way in drug innovation and lifesaving cures for Americans.
  There is no question that many Americans face high prescription drug 
costs, and there is no question that we can and should implement 
measures to drive down these costs. For months, the Senate Finance 
Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
and the Senate Judiciary Committee have been working on this issue. The 
same is true in the House.
  There are multiple bipartisan ideas both houses of Congress could act 
on, but Speaker Pelosi's bill is not the answer to the problem of high 
drug costs. The Speaker's bill would force drug companies to either 
accept government price controls or face up to a 95-percent tax on the 
sale of their drugs. That is right, 95 percent. This is not a good-
faith effort to come to the table to talk about solutions for lowering 
drug prices and out-of-pocket costs for Americans.
  Right now, America is a leader in prescription drug innovation and 
the development of new treatments. The Speaker's bill would threaten 
all of that. Under her bill, research into new treatments and cures 
would decrease.
  Yes, we need to address high drug prices, but discouraging the 
innovation that has improved the lives of so many Americans is not the 
way to go about it. The Speaker's proposal for government-run 
prescription drug prices would do exactly what Democrats' larger 
socialist healthcare fantasy would do, and that is to hurt Americans' 
healthcare.
  It would add limited healthcare innovation to the many negatives 
Americans would experience under so-called Medicare for All--negatives 
such as reduced access to care, limited treatment options, long wait 
times, and big tax bills for ordinary Americans.
  Of course, Democrats like to talk about forcing the wealthy to pay 
for Medicare for All and their other pie-in-the-sky proposals. The 
junior Senator from Vermont recently introduced a wealth tax he wants 
to use to pay for some of his special socialist programs. His proposal 
would ostensibly raise $4.35 trillion over 10 years. Here is the 
problem. Let's suppose he put all that money toward paying for his 
government-run takeover of healthcare, Medicare for All. At a 
conservative estimate, Medicare for All would cost $32 trillion over 10 
years--$32 trillion. The Senator from Vermont's wealth tax wouldn't 
even cover 15 percent of that cost. Who is going to pay the other 85 
percent? And that is supposing his wealth tax actually raises the money 
he says it will.
  European countries have repealed their wealth taxes right and left 
because they were ineffective. While I am sure the Senator from Vermont 
would be happy to levy additional taxes on the wealthy, the truth is, 
there simply aren't enough wealthy people in the United States to pay 
for all of the Democrats' socialist proposals. Ultimately, the burden 
for paying for these proposals would fall heavily on the middle class.
  There is no question that divided government can make things 
challenging, but it can also be the occasion for real, bipartisan 
action. Senate Republicans would love to work with Democrats on 
solutions to problems like the cost of healthcare. Unfortunately, 
Democrats have chosen to spend most of their time on partisan messaging 
and on proposing socialist fantasies that would hurt the very people 
they are supposed to help. I don't have a lot of confidence they will 
change anytime soon, but I hope they will. There is a lot we could 
still get done if Democrats are willing to come to the table and work 
with Republicans on solutions that will meet the challenges faced by 
the American people.
  Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Second Anniversary of Shooting at Route 91 Music Festival

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a 
terrible tragedy. Today is a solemn day and a chance to reflect. Two 
years ago, in my hometown of Las Vegas, thousands of people gathered on 
a warm evening at the Route 91 music festival. They were there with 
friends, partners, family.

[[Page S5717]]

They came to listen to country music, relax, and just celebrate.
  Two years ago on that evening, they heard the pop of what sounded 
like fireworks. After seconds for some, minutes for others, they 
understood what was happening: an attack that would become the worst 
mass shooting in modern American history.
  In the space of 11 minutes, Las Vegas was transformed. In that narrow 
window of time, 58 people were mortally wounded and hundreds of others 
were injured, many of them grievously.
  I still think about the stories of those who ran into the crowd to 
help others, those people who made a commitment that night to our 
community to protect others from harm. Police, firefighters, and other 
first responders who ran toward the festival grounds to rescue others 
made that commitment that October evening. The people who piled the 
wounded into their cars, vans, and pickups also offered a hand to help 
strangers. So did the doctors and nurses who rushed to the hospitals 
and the hundreds of Las Vegas and Reno residents who stood in line to 
donate blood. They all felt viscerally the desire to help those who 
were suffering in whatever way they could.
  We made a commitment to all those caught up in the devastating attack 
at the Route 91 festival, a promise that I honor today. I vowed to do 
all I could to help my community heal, to remember those who died, and 
to support those who bear scars of the body or of the spirit.
  During that dark time 2 years ago, my city came together to help and 
sustain the wounded and their families--people from all over the world, 
neighbors and strangers alike. I have never been prouder of Las Vegas.
  So many different groups worked in tandem that evening. There were 
the brave actions of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the 
Clark County School District Police Department, the Las Vegas Fire 
Department, and the Clark County Fire Department, who unhesitatingly 
risked their lives to stop the attack and rescue survivors.
  Health institutions across the State joined the effort, like American 
Medical Response, Medic West Ambulance, Community Ambulance, the 
University Medical Center, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, the 
Valley Health System, and Dignity Health. So many doctors and nurses, 
including Nellis Air Force Base medical professionals, worked then and 
in the weeks and months that followed to restore people to health. The 
Red Cross and the Department of Veterans Affairs supported the 
hospitals with their mobile units. There was the staff at United Blood 
Services, who worked doggedly to process donations from thousands of 
people in Las Vegas, Reno, and elsewhere in Nevada.
  There were many people and organizations in Nevada and nationwide 
that provided food, blankets, reduced airline tickets, and other ways 
to support the victims and their families. The FBI and the Nevada 
Victims of Crime Program helped families struggling with funeral and 
travel expenses. Airlines like Allegiant and Southwest also helped to 
cover costs. Donations poured in from Las Vegas and around the world. 
The donations are still coming in to support the Children of the 58 
Fund, which Neysa Tonks' family set up in remembrance of her to provide 
scholarships to children of victims. Donations are coming in to the 
Kern Community Foundation Day of Remembrance Fund, which also provides 
scholarships to victims and survivors.
  All of these people put aside their own needs--sometimes for moments 
and sometimes for months--to help others. They made a commitment to the 
victims. Part of that commitment simply has to be working to prevent 
other families in America from going through what families went through 
on that October 1 night as they waited in the Family Reunification 
Center, crying out for information about their loved ones but terrified 
at what they would hear.
  Here is the frightening part, the part that keeps me and so many of 
us across this Nation up at night: The shootings haven't stopped since 
October 1, 2017. Unimaginably, people who survived the Route 91 
shooting have found themselves terrorized by gun violence again since 
that tragic night. Some of them were at the Borderline Bar and Grill in 
Thousand Oaks, CA, just over a year after October 1 when a gunman 
opened fire and killed or wounded two dozen people. Others were in 
Gilroy, CA, just this July, where a man killed or wounded over a dozen 
people at an annual festival. Can you imagine going to enjoy yourself 
one afternoon or evening and having that place of community and 
celebration turn into a war zone? And then having that happen not once, 
in some horrible nightmare come to life, but multiple times. We cannot 
let this waking nightmare continue in America.
  We have to make a commitment to each other, a promise that we will 
not leave each other and those we love to be victims of this senseless 
violence, not when we can do something to stop it.
  Americans know this. They know that we are needlessly endangering our 
children and each other. They know that commonsense gun reform could 
both respect responsible gun ownership and fight the public health 
crisis that mass shootings and senseless gun violence represent.
  That is why people in both parties support gun violence reform by 
huge margins. They know that we simply cannot sidestep our 
responsibility to each other. We have to reduce these senseless mass 
shootings and save lives, and we can do that while also respecting the 
rights of responsible gun owners. We owe that to our communities.
  The families of those wounded on 1 October haven't given up on their 
responsibilities. They are still there for their loved ones day after 
day, as the visible and invisible wounds have continued to heal and as 
people have learned to walk, talk, and work again.
  The doctors and nurses who have cared for the injured have not given 
up. They don't say: Well, it has been 2 years; so we will not care for 
patients anymore.
  We haven't taken down the many moving memorials to 1 October, like 
the mural at the corner of Westcliff and Antelope Way, the 58 wooden 
crosses near the Las Vegas welcome sign on the Strip, or the Community 
Healing Garden on Casino Center Boulevard.
  Just the opposite, Clark County Museum has been carefully 
photographing and cataloging over 17,000 items, from Las Vegas Strong 
T-shirts and bumper stickers to stuffed animals, from artificial 
flowers to rosaries that people left at memorials to the Route 91 
victims and survivors. That care and that attention--that is what a 
commitment is. When you make one, you have to be there for the long 
haul, to see the thing you promised to the end.
  I will always remember the 1 October victims and their loved ones and 
always commemorate their loss. I know it is a loss that can never be 
fully repaired but only eased by time. I will always honor the bravery 
of those who sacrificed their own safety to help others, and I will 
never stop fighting to make America safer, to save families across the 
country from what I watched families in Las Vegas go through that night 
and from what my own family went through as we waited to hear back 
about whether my niece was safe or not as she attended that concert 
that night.
  This is our commitment. We have to continue to remember, but we have 
to do something about it. Our time is now.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, on October 1, 2017, the city of Las Vegas 
experienced a tragedy on an unprecedented scale--a tragedy that has 
left our community deeply scarred and our city forever changed.
  It was a warm October night. Tens of thousands of people were 
gathering in town for a music festival. They were there to have fun, to 
dance, and to be joyous, but that joy was cut short by violence and 
terror when a lone gunman began to open fire.
  In the 10 minutes that the shooting lasted, over 1,100 rounds were 
fired. I repeat: 1,100 rounds. There were 58 innocent people murdered 
and 422 injured.
  Next week marks the second anniversary of that horrific evening--the 
deadliest mass shooting in American history. Sons, daughters, parents, 
friends,

[[Page S5718]]

and neighborhoods--each one of them were loved, and they were all taken 
from us far too soon.
  Countless others were injured in the chaotic frenzy that followed the 
gunfire. Many will never live the same life they once knew.
  Several victims from that night never received the care they needed, 
including members of the Nevada's immigrant community, who were too 
scared--too scared--to seek care for risk of deportation.
  The 1 October shooting forever altered the lives of countless 
families in Las Vegas and countless families across this country. Many 
are still grieving and will suffer through pain that no family, no 
friend, no spouse, or no child should ever have to face, and that empty 
seat at every Thanksgiving and every holiday table will never be 
filled.
  Numerous survivors are still working through the effects of this 
incredible trauma. Put simply, this massacre shook our community to its 
very core.
  Let me be clear when I tell you today that we were not and we will 
not be shattered. The bright lights of Las Vegas will continue to shine 
through the darkness of that day. We are resilient, and we will always 
be Vegas Strong.
  I stand here today to honor the memory of 58 victims who lost their 
lives and the hundreds more who were injured and are still fighting to 
recover. I am here to say that they will never be forgotten. We will be 
there to stand side by side with them as they continue to overcome the 
challenges and trauma brought on by the shooting.
  We must also remember that in the face of terror, there were people 
who made the selfless choice to run toward the gunfire and to help. 
They were our brave first responders who risked their lives to offer 
aid. They were everyday citizens who allowed others to escape in their 
cars. They were law enforcement officers, firefighters, physicians, and 
cabdrivers. Every member of our community that could came out to help. 
All of them are heroes, and all of them must be remembered.
  Heroes continue to come forward in the days, weeks, months, and even 
years now following the shooting, lining up to donate blood, giving 
financial aid to help support those who were injured and the families 
of those who were murdered, helping to reunite friends and families in 
the aftermath, and, to this day, providing counseling and the much-
needed support to those who are still suffering from the trauma of that 
horrific night.
  Our city provided legal, financial, and mental health services to 
those who were affected by the violence that night, including the 
formation of the Vegas Strong Resiliency Center.
  In the days immediately following the shooting, community members and 
local businesses formed what is now known as the Las Vegas Community 
Healing Garden, a memorial to those whose lives were lost. Visitors 
planted 58 trees--one for each victim--and painted rocks and ornaments 
with words of encouragement and words of strength. Family members 
decorated trees of their loved ones.
  Following the shooting, Nevada also took action, passing a series of 
gun safety measures to prevent this kind of tragedy from occurring 
again.
  Two years have passed. I wish I could say that Congress has followed 
Nevada's lead, that we have come together as a nation in healing, put 
partisanship aside, and passed commonsense gun safety legislation to 
protect the lives of Americans. But, sadly, this is not the case.
  Each day and each year that Congress fails to pass commonsense gun 
violence prevention measures is another day and another year that we 
fail to honor the 58 who lost their lives on 1 October and the 
countless lives that have been lost to gun violence.
  This type of tragedy happens all too often in our country. This past 
year, there were 337 mass shootings. That is nearly one a day for an 
entire year. So far in 2019, we have already experienced over 300 mass 
shootings. This is unacceptable. We must work to prevent these weapons 
from ending up in the wrong hands, and we owe it to the countless 
Americans who have lost their lives, who were injured and forever 
scarred, to find a solution, not just for those who lost their lives in 
Las Vegas but for those in countless other American cities.
  In the days following the terrible tragedies in Gilroy, El Paso, and 
Dayton, I visited the heroes of the Vegas Strong Resiliency Center. 
They have been working nonstop for 2 years helping our community to 
heal. As I learned of their efforts not only to help victims and 
survivors but also to extend a hand to help communities like ours in 
their greatest time of need, I was reminded by them of just how 
resilient we are as a people, as a community, and as a country.
  We owe it to these heroes to no longer accept inaction. We must all 
continue to stand up, to speak out, and to refuse to allow these kinds 
of tragedies because they should never define us.
  No American--no American--should ever have to think twice about going 
to church, the movies, or a concert on a warm October night, and no 
parent--no mother--should have a bulletproof backpack on their back-to-
school shopping list.
  As Members of Congress, we were elected to solve problems and to keep 
our country safe. When it comes to gun violence, we are failing. We are 
failing spectacularly on both counts, but we don't have to. We can take 
action. We can take reasonable steps to reduce gun violence. We can put 
a stop to the carnage that is happening across our country, and we can 
do this while still respecting the Second Amendment.
  What is happening is not normal, but it is also not inevitable. 
Sharing our thoughts and prayers shouldn't be the only action we ever 
take. Let's put our differences aside and make mass shootings a thing 
of the past, not a daily expectation for our future.
  It has been over 200 days since H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background 
Checks Act, passed the House of Representatives. I am a proud cosponsor 
of the Senate's companion legislation, S. 42. The legislation is ready 
to go. The legislation will close loopholes and require background 
checks for all commercial gun sales, including those made at gun shows 
and on the internet.
  In memory of the 58 Americans who lost their lives on 1 October and 
those who have lost their lives before and after, I call on my 
colleagues to act and to take up this legislation for an immediate 
vote.
  It is past time. It is past time that we come together and find 
solutions. It is past time because if we don't act, then, the 
inevitable will continue to be our daily reality.
  We can prevent mass shootings in this country, but ``can'' is not 
possible without the word ``courage.''
  I implore this body to have the courage so that no other family has 
to endure this kind of tragedy, this kind of trauma, and this kind of 
sorrow.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2486

  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I am here once again to urge the Senate to 
take up the FUTURE Act, to extend funding for our historically Black 
colleges and universities.
  I see my great friend, the Senator from Tennessee, across the way, 
and I know the Senator, as a music fan and a musician himself, 
understands the term ``broken record.'' A broken record is that record 
that is an old album and the vinyl has a little bit of a flaw, and it 
just gets stuck on the same lyric, the same refrain, and keeps going 
back to it. That is what I feel like today.
  I also know that with just a little pressure on those old vinyl 
records, just a little bit of pressure, you can go right through that 
and get to melody. That is what I was hoping to do today, that we could 
put just enough pressure on the Senate and others to go right through 
and fund HBCUs. The deadline for that funding ends September 30.
  People will say it is not going to turn the lights out in our 
historically Black colleges and universities, and it is not. I get 
that. We also know we have to plan. We have to look months in advance. 
We have to look a year in advance to make sure that funding is there.

[[Page S5719]]

  This bill--a similar bill has passed the House of Representatives 
unanimously. In this partisan world we are living in, it passed the 
House unanimously the other day. It has overwhelming bipartisan support 
in this body.
  This is something our historically Black colleges and universities 
need today. They don't need to wait. We don't need to put them in the 
lurch and uncertainty because in today's world in Washington, DC, there 
is no certainty. We don't know what will happen tomorrow. We don't know 
what is going to happen next week with the legislation that will come 
before this body. Nothing is predictable. We don't see the kind of 
legislation we should be seeing. We don't deliberate and have the kind 
of deliberations we have seen this body have in the past.
  So to say we can put this together as part of a bigger bill and 
hopefully get this done this year is possible, but it is also just as 
possible, in today's world, that doesn't get done, that it ends up 
somewhere buried beneath a whole bunch of other qualified and just as 
meritorious bills that never see the action of the U.S. Senate or the 
Congress of the United States.
  I would urge--urge that we do the right thing by our historically 
Black colleges and universities. Let's get this bill passed unanimously 
and sent to the President of the United States for his signature so all 
of our historically Black colleges and universities and minority-
serving institutions can breathe a sigh of relief.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 212, H.R. 2486; that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
mentioned music, and I guess a lot of us have been watching Ken Burns' 
``Country Music'' film the last several days, which is terrific and 
includes lots from Alabama and even more from Tennessee.
  My experience with music and Nashville songwriters is, to get a 
melody, you need some cooperation. You need cooperation. Usually, they 
have three songwriters who will write a song. I am interested in 
harmony, but I think we need some cooperation across the aisle as on 
our committee--thanks to the distinguished Senator from Washington 
State, Mrs. Murray, and Senator Jones--we often have. We had it on 
fixing No Child Left Behind; we had it on the 21st Century Cures; we 
had it on the Opioid Crisis Response Act; we had it on the Lowering 
Healthcare Costs Act, which came out of our committee 20 to 3 just 
recently; and we need to have it on higher education.
  So I have a suggestion today. I want to speak about it for about 10 
minutes. It would, I believe, give an opportunity to deal with the 
historically Black colleges legislation and indeed an opportunity to do 
more than that.
  In the first place, the bill passed by the House is a short-term 
bill, which is funded by a budget gimmick, which has no chance of 
passing the Senate. I propose that we do permanent funding of 
historically Black colleges. That is the way to provide certainty. I 
propose that we include within it a package of seven or eight other 
pieces of legislation on which there is bipartisan support--as many as 
half the Members of the Senate, about half Republican and half 
Democratic. All of these provisions--simplifying FAFSA, short-term Pell 
grants, Pell grants for prisoners, increasing the amount of Pell--help 
low-income Americans go to college and simplify the process for doing 
that.
  So if it is urgently important, as I believe it is, to properly fund 
historically Black colleges, I am ready to do that, but I am also ready 
to continue to work to pass a small package of bills that will help 
many of the same people the historically Black colleges legislation 
would help and then continue to work with Senator Murray and with other 
members of the committee on a larger package of bills that would 
include issues that could be part of a more comprehensive Higher 
Education Reauthorization Act--issues such as accountability, Federal-
State partnership, campus safety, and the like.
  For the last 5 years, Senator Murray and I have been working on a 
bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We have had 
about 30 hearings on all manner of issues, from accountability, to 
campus safety, to simplifying the student aid process. We have yet to 
reach agreement on some of those issues, but on several important 
issues, as I mentioned, we have bipartisan proposals by members of our 
committee and Senators who are not on the committee that will make 
college more affordable for low-income students and make college worth 
students' time and money.
  I am committed to working with the Senator from Washington State to 
develop a larger, more comprehensive bill, but right now, why should we 
pass up an opportunity to enact a package that includes several of the 
bipartisan proposals that are the result of our 5 years of work, 
including permanent funding for historically Black colleges and 
universities?
  At the end of the month, as the Senator from Alabama said, the law 
providing for funding for historically Black colleges and universities 
and other minority-serving institutions expires. Everyone wants to see 
that continue.
  The House of Representatives passed legislation, but instead of the 
short-term patch that the House passed, we should pass a long-term 
solution that gives certainty to college presidents and their students. 
Congress has time to do this. It is true that the law expires at the 
end of this month, but the money doesn't. The U.S. Department of 
Education has sent a letter assuring Congress that there is enough 
funding in the program to continue through the next fiscal year. So 
there is a year for us to work on permanent funding and this small 
package of other bills on which we have already spent 5 years. That 
ought to be enough time even for U.S. Senators.
  We should reach a long-term solution. That is why today I am 
introducing a long-term solution to permanently provide funding for 
minority-serving institutions, including the six historically Black 
colleges and universities in Tennessee. The solution would be part of a 
package of 8 bipartisan higher education bills drafted by 35 Senators--
20 Democrats, 15 Republicans--that will help many of the same students 
who are helped by the historically Black colleges act.
  The package of bills will make it easier for millions of students to 
receive a college education by simplifying the Federal application for 
student aid, providing Pell grants to parole-eligible prisoners, 
allowing Pell grants to be used for short-term programs, and increasing 
the maximum Pell grant award.
  Here are the eight provisions that I believe should be included in 
the package.
  First, permanent mandatory funding of $255 million each year for 
historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving 
institutions.
  Second, FAFSA simplification reduces the number of questions on the 
student application for Federal aid from 108 to between 17 and 30 
questions that Senator Jones and I have proposed. This means that a 
quarter of a million students will now be eligible for Pell grants. In 
addition, 1.3 million students will be eligible for the maximum Pell 
grant award.
  There is no excuse for not passing the FAFSA Simplification Act. 
Senator Bennet and I, as well as Senators Murray, Jones, and others, 
have been working on this for years. Twenty million American families 
have to fill out these 108 questions every year that are unnecessary 
for them to fill out, and delay is unnecessary for us.
  No. 3, Pell grants for prisoners allows incarcerated individuals who 
are eligible for parole to use a Pell grant for prison education 
programs. This is something a number of Senators want to do, including 
Senators Schatz, Lee, and Durbin.
  No. 4, the short-term Pell is a proposal that a large group of 
Senators, including Senators Portman, Kaine, Cardin, Gillibrand, 
Hassan, Klobuchar, Stabenow, Baldwin, Brown, Capito, Coons, Ernst, 
Jones, Moran,

[[Page S5720]]

Shaheen, Sinema, Smith, Wicker, and Braun, support. This legislation 
has been introduced to use Pell grants for high-quality, short-term 
skills and job training programs that lead to credentialing and 
employment in high-demand fields like healthcare and cyber security.
  No. 5, a proposal to simplify aid letters. Sometimes students get a 
letter that says they have received money, but some students don't 
understand that some of it is a loan that has to be paid back and some 
of it is a grant. Senators Grassley, Smith, Cassidy, Ernst, Hassan, 
Jones, Klobuchar, Manchin, and Rubio have legislation that would 
simplify and make that clear.
  No. 6 in the package increases the maximum Pell grant award.
  No. 7 is a bipartisan proposal that both President Obama and 
President Trump have supported, which is to ensure that students who 
opt to pay back their loans under the income-driven repayment plan pay 
the full 10 percent of their discretionary income as the law intended.
  Finally, No. 8 is a proposal by Senator Murray and me, along with 
Senators Collins, Cornyn, Gardner, Hassan, King, Stabenow, Tillis, and 
Whitehouse, to allow students to answer up to 22 questions on the 
current FAFSA with one click by using the data the government already 
has from the IRS.
  I can't tell you how many times Tennessean parents have said to me: 
Why do I have to give the government the same information twice in 
order for my student to be able to go to college?
  This would also reduce the burdensome verification process.
  The Senate has already passed this legislation once. That provision 
is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and will be 
included once the package is ready for consideration on the floor.
  In addition, there are at least three other bipartisan provisions 
that, with a little more discussion and work, I believe should be 
included in this package. They have the support of 30 Senators from 
both sides of the aisle.
  The College Transparency Act is the first. It creates a student unit 
record system to help students and families compare how students 
perform in specific colleges and universities. Senators Warren, 
Cassidy, Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Cornyn, Duckworth, Ernst, Gardner, 
Graham, Grassley, Hassan, Hyde-Smith, Jones, Kaine, Klobuchar, Murphy, 
Perdue, Roberts, Romney, Scott, Sinema, Smith, Sullivan, Tillis, 
Toomey, Whitehouse, and Alexander all support this provision. There is 
substantial bipartisan support in both the Senate and House for it. We 
will work to include it as we move forward.
  The Education of the Deaf Act simply reauthorizes Gallaudet 
University in Washington, DC, and has a long history of bipartisan 
support.
  The Educational Opportunity and Success Act reauthorizes the TRIO 
Program, which helps low-income, first-generation, and other 
disadvantaged students enroll and succeed in a college or university 
program and has the support of Senators Collins, Baldwin, Capito, and 
Tester.
  To continue funding for historically Black colleges and universities 
and other minority-serving institutions, the House of Representatives 
took a shortcut. They rushed a bill to the floor that has serious 
problems.
  First, it is not a bill that can pass the Senate. My objection is not 
the only objection. Second, it only funds HBCUs and minority-serving 
institutions for 2 years, setting up yet another artificial cliff. 
Finally, it uses a budget gimmick to pay for it, which is one reason it 
won't pass the Senate.
  This presents Congress with an opportunity to do it right and to pass 
other important legislation that we have already agreed to--at least 
half of us. It presents Congress with an opportunity to give certainty 
to HBCUs and minority-serving institutions and make it easier for 
millions to receive a college education.
  The package of eight bills I am proposing--the eight bills I am 
introducing today and the three bills I hope to include later--has been 
drafted by 48 Senators--25 Democrats and 23 Republicans. Working 
together on a bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate now is the best 
strategy to give permanent funding to HBCUs and other minority-serving 
institutions, to simplify the Federal application for student aid, to 
provide Pell grants to parole-eligible prisoners, to allow Pell grants 
to be used for short-term programs, and to increase the maximum Pell 
grant award.
  Senator Murray and I have discussed as recently as yesterday her 
desire and my agreement to try to work toward a comprehensive higher 
education piece of legislation. We have been working on that for 5 
years. We can continue to work on the issues that still divide us. In 
the meantime, I agree, it is urgent to deal with historically Black 
colleges. It is also urgent to deal with 20 million families who fill 
out FAFSA every year and to work on the other issues I mentioned. We 
have agreed on those. Let's put it in a package, turn it into law, and 
keep working on the other issues.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let's stop playing games with critical 
funding for minority serving institutions or MSIs.
  Mandatory funding expires on September 30, just days from now.
  If that funding isn't reauthorized, MSIs will collectively face a 
$255 million annual shortfall.
  That will impact these institutions' academic programs, ability to 
provide housing to students, renovate facilities, and provide critical 
counseling and other student supports.
  In 2018, Illinois received $5.3 million of this funding, which 
supported city colleges in Chicago, Northeastern Illinois University, 
Chicago State, the University of Illinois, and other institutions 
around our State.
  Recently, the House of Representatives passed the FUTURE Act to 
reauthorize this funding.
  Unfortunately, the passage of this bipartisan bill has been blocked 
in the Senate.
  This is a great example of what frustrates the American people so 
much about Congress.
  We have a bipartisan bill that passed the House by voice vote and 
that maintains funding for institutions of higher education that enroll 
6 million students, of which two of three are students of color.
  But it is being held up, and we are unnecessarily creating a crisis.
  Let's stop the games.
  Let's show America that we can come together.
  Let's pass the FUTURE Act now.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am here today to advocate on behalf of 
Maryland's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities that face 
a funding cliff next week. Without the immediate passage of the FUTURE 
Act, Bowie State University, Coppin State University, Morgan State 
University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore face a 
collective $4.2 million funding shortfall when the Higher Education 
Act's authorization for mandatory funding for these institutions 
lapses.
  This clean, bipartisan, 2-year reauthorization gives us breathing 
room to continue to negotiate the full reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act without holding these historically underfunded 
institutions hostage. Our HBCUs and minority serving institutions know 
that they can count on this mandatory funding each year to strengthen 
their course offerings in in-demand STEM programs, make infrastructure 
improvements, and provide academic counseling and student support 
services to first generation and historically underrepresented 
students.
  This potential lapse in the authorization for mandatory funding is 
exacerbated by the inability of Congress to provide a fiscal year 2020 
budget on time, leaving institutions in even more of a financial 
planning crunch. Throwing the budgets of these institutions into chaos 
directly harms their ability to serve their students and communities. 
If this mandatory authorization were to lapse, schools could not count 
on mandatory funds to backfill spending at a later date. Institutions 
would have to make decisions about reducing levels of academic 
services, delaying needed infrastructure investments, or make staffing 
decisions.
  This is an unnecessary obstacle that our HBCUs and MSIs do not need 
to face. I urge this body to join with the House of Representatives and 
pass the FUTURE Act to ensure this mandatory funding remains in place.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.

[[Page S5721]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Alabama 
for his tremendous leadership on this very critical effort because 
right now we are days away from a very damaging lapse in funding for 
our HBCUs, our Tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions 
that creates unnecessary and needless uncertainty for students in 
schools across this country.
  Both of my colleagues spoke of music and the need for harmony. Well, 
it appears to me that the bill the Senator from Alabama is asking us to 
approve today for the funding for HBCUs is a heck of a lot of harmony. 
The House has already acted to fix this. They sent this bill to the 
Senate on a bipartisan basis. All Members of the House support it, and 
it is paid for in a way even the White House supports. In this day and 
age, I would take that harmony.
  So I am very frustrated about today's opposition to this simple step 
to protect colleges and universities with such important missions. I 
can't see a good reason why we haven't sent the President this bill.
  I listened to the Senator from Tennessee, and it sounds to me like he 
wants to write a whole new song. He is interested in a small package of 
higher education proposals, and he said he wants to see the FUTURE Act 
as a part of that. But it is pretty clear to me that when you have a 
good song and you have everybody together moving that, and maybe there 
is a discordant note somewhere, you just keep moving forward with that 
song--if we want to stay with the country music theme here.
  I believe we should not delay it. Let's move this forward. Let's not 
threaten the funding for some of our most valued institutions. We 
should take this up and pass the FUTURE Act right away and then 
continue our committee discussions about how to reauthorize the Higher 
Education Act.
  Since the start of those discussions, I have been very clear that we 
need to do this reauthorization in a comprehensive way that really 
helps students with the many challenges they face. We have so many 
students today who are struggling with the burdensome costs of getting 
a degree, who find themselves cheated by bad actors that, by the way, 
Secretary DeVos is not holding accountable, and they are stuck with 
mounting debt. They face bullying, harassment, and assault when they 
should be focused on learning in their classes, or they are faced 
without pathways to help them get into higher education in the first 
place.
  Today the House is rightly looking at a comprehensive higher 
education reauthorization to address all these issues of affordability, 
accountability, campus safety, and acceptability, and that is what the 
Senate should do as well. Surely the Senate can reach an agreement on 
those issues but only if we stay at the table and keep working together 
rather than veering off the course we set. That is what I am very 
concerned a smaller package would mean.
  I believe that we have a real opportunity to reach a comprehensive 
agreement that helps students in need, and we ought to take it. In the 
meantime, there is no excuse for playing politics, holding up the 
FUTURE Act, and exposing students and schools nationwide to uncertainty 
and to dysfunction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Murray and Senator Jones, to call upon the Senate to pass the 
Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education 
Act--the FUTURE Act--today because that future is today.
  Should the Senate fail to act on this legislation, hundreds of 
minority-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and 
universities across America are going to face some drastic funding cuts 
that could jeopardize the education of millions of students of color 
nationwide. Collectively, these institutions serve nearly 6 million 
undergraduate students throughout the United States, two-thirds of whom 
come from communities of color.
  Without these Federal dollars for MSIs, we will be facing the 
potential for job losses, the possible closure of important academic 
programs, and most importantly, the doors of educational opportunity 
slamming shut for young men and women of color across this 
country. Minority-serving institutions have long enjoyed bipartisan 
support in this body. It is perplexing and concerning to think that the 
Senate would depart for recess without passing this critical 
legislation.

  In the coming years, these institutions of higher learning will play 
an increasingly vital role in our increasingly diverse Nation. Consider 
that, already, Hispanic children make up one out of every four children 
in America's public schools and counting. Of these students, 
approximately one out of five will go to college. And when they do, 
two-thirds of them will wind up studying at a Hispanic-serving 
institution. Can we, as a nation, really afford to shortchange their 
education?
  In representing a community that is already such a large part of the 
American population--one out of four is going to be one out of three in 
just a couple of years--can we afford to shortchange their education 
and, as such, the success of this country, which demands that we do 
not?
  Just last Thursday, this body joined me to unanimously pass my 
bipartisan resolution honoring Hispanic-serving institutions week. But 
it is hard to take seriously our words of support for minority-serving 
institutions if we fail to back up those words with real action. 
Unfortunately, that is where we stand today--on the cusp of skipping 
town without voting to properly fund these institutions.
  Across America, 523 Hispanic-serving institutions in 25 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico serve more than 2 million hard-
working Latino and Latina students who dream of a college education. I 
know this dream well. Indeed, my own story began at a Hispanic-serving 
institution, even though that designation did not yet exist at the 
time. I was the first in my family to attend college, and I did so at 
St. Peter's College in Jersey City, NJ. It is because of the professors 
and educators at St. Peter's, who recognized that not all children 
arrive at college with the same advantages or opportunities for upward 
mobility, that I am here today--one of four Hispanic-American Senators.
  It is a story that is repeated not only in Hispanic-serving 
institutions but at HBCUs and other MSIs across the country that help 
students from underserved communities overcome the odds and reach their 
true potential.
  This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue. The House passed this 
bill by voice vote. It was such an easy vote that they didn't even 
require a rollcall. I understand that there are many other issues 
facing our higher education system, and I appreciate that. I am 
committed to working with my colleagues--particularly Senators 
Alexander and Murray, the chairman and ranking member of the HELP 
Committee--to help create a system in this country that helps serve all 
of our students and prepares America's workforce to compete all around 
the world. Yet the fact is that these minority-serving institutions 
face a funding cliff if we fail to act.
  Let's not make our students of color pay the price while we continue 
to debate the broader issues facing our higher education system. Let's 
pass the FUTURE Act today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I appreciate the comments by the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  To be clear, the House bill for historically Black minority-serving 
institutions creates a new funding cliff. It is a short-term patch for 
2 years that creates a cliff after 2 years. It is supported by a budget 
gimmick that can't possibly pass the Senate.
  What I have proposed is a permanent solution to get rid of the 
cliff--a permanent solution that those institutions and those students 
can depend on. The proposal is $255 million a year, fully paid for. 
Second, the U.S. Department of Education has written a letter to 
Congress and said that no one is going to lose their money at the end 
of the month. The law expires, but the money doesn't. There is enough 
money to continue the program for another year. It shouldn't take us 
another year

[[Page S5722]]

to work this out. Third, it is urgent to deal with historically Black 
colleges.
  Let's look at the students, not the colleges. Who goes to 
historically Black colleges? Low-income students often go there. And 
every year, 20 million low-income Americans fill out this ridiculously 
complicated FAFSA application for student aid that has 108 questions. 
We agree on both sides of the aisle--and have for several years--that 
it could be limited to 17 to 30 questions. The president of the 
Southwest Tennessee Community College in Memphis, TN, which is almost 
all African American in terms of its students, tells me he loses 1,500 
students a year, almost all African American, who are intimidated by 
this complicated FAFSA.
  Let's do both of these things. Let's have a permanent solution for 
historically Black colleges, and let's help the 20 million families who 
fill out this ridiculously complicated form every year because we agree 
on that. There is no need to wait on that. We have Republicans and 
Democrats who agree on it. We could finish this in a matter of a few 
weeks. No one is going to lose any money. There is enough money for 
historically Black colleges for a year, and there is no excuse for 
creating a new cliff to replace the one that will occur in a year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 942

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 942 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Paul amendment by 
number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 942.

  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To reduce the amount appropriated by 2 percent)

       At the appropriate place in division A, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REDUCTION IN RATE FOR OPERATIONS.

       The rate for operations provided by section 101 is hereby 
     reduced by 2 percent.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my 
remarks before we begin the next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PAUL. My amendment to this spending bill will be to cut 2 percent 
across the board, so we can actually be responsible and try to balance 
our budget.
  Most people I talk to at home or people who come up here, who are 
seeking assistance from the Federal Government, say: That doesn't sound 
too bad--1 or 2 percent. We could deal with that.
  People come to me and say: Well, my group is doing this great 
research for this disease that affects all of these people.
  I say: How much are you getting?
  They say: $100 million.
  I say: We have a trillion-dollar debt, and everybody ought to try to 
spend what comes in rather than spending money we don't have. Does it 
make sense even for a good cause to borrow money from China to spend 
money we don't have?
  Most of them--even groups that live at the Federal trough, groups 
that need and want and all they come here for is Federal money--say: 
Well, that is not too unreasonable. We got $100 million last year.
  Could you take $98 million for the good of the country? Instead of 
getting $100 million, could you take $98 million--2 percent less--in 
order to balance the budget and not destroy the country with all of 
this debt?
  Interestingly, whether these groups are from the left, right, center, 
Republican, Democrat, or Independent, most of them look at me and nod 
their heads. I think the groups that receive Federal money realize this 
massive debt we have is destroying the country. Even the groups 
receiving it are willing to cut 1 percent or 2 percent. But do you know 
who is not? The Senate--the Congress. They will not cut anything.
  My amendment today to add a 2-percent cut to this spending will get 
15 or 20 votes. Not one Democrat will vote for this bill. Do you know 
what the Democrats will say? They will say: The debt is because you cut 
taxes. This is something that is factually incorrect. We did cut taxes, 
but revenue is up. This is a fact. We cut the tax rates, but the 
economy is growing gangbusters, and revenue is up.
  Why do we have a massive debt? Why are we breaking records? Why, in 
February, did we have more debt added than at any other time in our 
history? Why are we about to bust a trillion dollars in debts this 
year? It is spending; it isn't revenue. Revenue is up.
  We did cut tax rates, and companies are growing like they haven't 
grown in decades. If you talk to businesses, the biggest problem in our 
country right now is they can't find enough people to work for them. 
There is a labor shortage in our country. It is a great time to be a 
worker in our country.
  But this will not pass. My amendment will not pass because people are 
afraid that the public will not like them if they don't give them more 
money. I am afraid we will destroy the country if we keep running more 
debts.
  The debt is growing at 8 percent a year. Spending is growing only at 
4.5 percent, 5 percent a year. The debt is growing more rapidly because 
we have accumulated so much. We have over a $22 trillion debt. The 
interest this year is over $300 billion. As it grows faster and faster, 
the interest will exceed what we are spending on the military within 
about 5 years. Nobody is doing anything about it.
  We passed spending caps 5 years ago. It was called the sequester. It 
went on for a while and actually was reducing the debt. Then you ask 
whose fault is it that we have this massive debt, this massive 
spending; is it Republicans or Democrats? The answer is yes. Both 
parties are fiscally irresponsible, but it has nothing to do with taxes 
or revenue. Revenue is going up dramatically. It has to do with 
spending. Both parties are guilty of this.
  The Republicans want unlimited military spending, and the Democrats 
want unlimited welfare spending. People say that there is not enough 
compromise in Washington. That is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely 
misreported by the media. There is too much compromise here. The 
compromise is always to spend more money and to spend money we don't 
have. The military gets their unlimited money, and the welfare state 
gets unlimited spending. Republicans and Democrats both join hands 
together, and what happens around here on a day-to-day basis is 
compromise to spend money we don't have, to borrow it from China and, 
sometimes, to send it back to China.
  Do you realize we send economic development aid to China? That is 
ridiculous. We send money all around the world. Many of these countries 
that get money don't like us. They hate us. They burn our flag in the 
street, yet we send them money. We are not even sending our own money. 
We borrow from China to send it out.
  I think this is a very reasonable proposal. Some will say it is 
draconian. If they passed my amendment today and cut spending by 2 
percent, we would still be spending more money than 2 years ago. We 
would be spending $19 billion more than 2 years ago. If we pass my 2 
percent cut--the 2-penny cut that I am proposing--we would still be 
spending more money than the caps that the vast Senate majority voted 
on 5 years ago.
  Why is the debt burgeoning? Whose fault is it? Is it Republicans; is 
it Democrats? The answer is yes. Both parties are acting fiscally 
irresponsibly. It has nothing to do with tax revenue and has everything 
to do with spending. People say that the people want it. Do the people 
want a bankrupt country? Do they want a country that is being eaten 
from the inside out? Do they want this reckless spending that someday 
will lead to a day of reckoning? No.
  I think we have to get our house in order and get our budget in 
order. I think we need to balance our budget. If my amendment for a 2-
percent cut were to pass--how many families have had to deal with 2 
percent less? How many businesses in bad times have to cut their budget 
by 2 percent? If the government were today to pass my amendment--a 2-
percent cut--that means you get 98 percent of everything they are 
spending. We would balance the budget within 5 years. That is 
ostensibly what many Republicans say they are for.

  When we have a vote for a balanced budget, everybody lines up, and 
all of

[[Page S5723]]

the Republicans vote for a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution that says the budget will balance within 5 years. Then, 
when given the opportunity to vote for spending cuts, we lose half of 
the Republicans. The Democrats don't care, as they will not vote for 
spending cuts, but the Republicans at least profess to be for spending 
cuts. Yet, when we offer a modest proposal like this, we lose half of 
the Republicans.
  There is a problem with debts, and both parties share some guilt. 
What I have put forward today, though, is an opportunity for the 
Senators who truly believe the debt is a problem to try to restrain 
spending with a 2-percent cut across the board. I hope Senators will 
consider voting for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 942

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Paul amendment 
No. 942.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, 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 senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 310 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Young

                                NAYS--73

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Booker
     Sanders
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 942) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for 
the third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. CRAMER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--16

     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Booker
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 81, the nays are 16.
  The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 311, I voted yea. It 
was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

                          ____________________