quorum call:

quorum call:

.

mr. cardin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the dwoark be dispensed with. the presiding officer: -- that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, in february of this year, the house of representatives passed what's known as the universal background check in regards to

gun sales. since that time, the senate has had no action whatsoever on gun safety issues. leader mcconnell could bring this bill to the floor, and i am confident that we have the support to pass it. i do hear from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we're waiting for the president, and unless the president signs off on a bill, they are not interested in bringing it up. well, the last time i checked the constitution of the united states, the first article of the constitution provides for the legislative branch of government, and that's us, and we make the laws, not the president of the united states. it's up to us to deliberate and consider legislation and pass legislation, and yet, no action from the -- on the floor of the senate. leader mcconnell will not

bring up gun safety legislation. every day we wait -- every day 100 people in america die through gun violence -- every single day. that's why many of us are frequently speaking on the floor of the senate on the need to consider gun safety legislation. madam president, it's been over 200 days since the house took action -- bipartisan action -- on the universal background checks. since that time, we've seen many, many mass shootings, including on august 3, el paso, august 4, in dayton, august 31, in odessa. no action on the floor of the united states senate. every day there are people dying in our communities and in our

homes with gun violence. no action on the floor of the united states senate. the united states is an outlier among the developed nations in the world. we had ten times, 20 times, 30 times more stainses of gun violence -- instances of gun violence than in developed countries in the world, more guns in private ownership than the people in the private world, more suicides, more mass shootings, more gun violence, and yet no action on the floor of the united states senate. so, madam president, the issue is kind of simple. inaction is not an answer to gun violence here in america. americans are expecting us, the members of the united states senate, to consider gun safety legislation and the majority

leader could bring that bill to the floor today before another 100 people die and let us take action. i mentioned several times the bill that passed the house of representatives over 200 days ago, the universal background checks. let me just talk a moment about why that bill needs to be considered and passed as soon as possible. in 1993, we passed the brady handgun violence prevention act. it provides for a presale check as to whether an individual's entitlemented to -- entitled to own a handgun. as i'm sure my colleagues are aware, the supreme court of the united states has determined that the second amendment is not absolute. if you've been convicted of a violent crime, if you have mental issues, you're not entitled to have a handgun. the brady presale check are determines whether you fall into

those categories, and they'll deny you the right to buy a handgun if you do. since its inception in 1993, three million sales have been stopped. it works. it's compliant with the supreme court. it doesn't interfere with legitimate second-amendment rights. it was passed in the 1993. it's now 2019. sellers of handguns have figured out a way to get around the law by private sales, gun shows, internet sales. we didn't have internet sales in 1993 on the sale of guns. and we need to close those loopholes. now here's the situation. some states have done that. and where the states have done it, we see the results are favorable, less gun violence for those states that have

passed universal background checks. however, let me just give you the state of maryland. 53% of the guns recovered from maryland crime scenes are guns that were acquired in a state outside of maryland. we need universal background checks in order to provide the type of results that we can keep our communities safer by keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not entitled to have guns. how do the american people feel about this? 90%-plus of the american people believe that we should have universal background checks. and yet, no action on the floor of the united states senate, and the republican leader will not bring the bill to the floor. this is a bill that should have been passed a long time ago.

every day we delay, another 100 deaths through gun violence. but we shouldn't stop there. we should deal with assault-style military weapons. when we look at the results with someone who has one of these assault weapons, within a matter of seconds they can shoot off multiple rounds, killing multiple number of people. and even if you have someone who can come to the rescue, law enforcement on the scene, people are able to try to deal with the circumstances, well, in a matter of seconds you've already had multiple casualties. we need to get rid of these military-style weapons and private ownership. when you talk to law enforcement officers and you ask them what did they fear the most when going into a situation where someone is armed, it's the assault weapons. it's not fair to our law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for us,

who rush in to harm's way for us to allow for these type of weapons to be available by the general public we can do something about it. let us take up legislation that restricts private ownership of assault-style weapons. yet, no action on the floor of the united states senate. the republican leader will not bring up any issues on gun safety. and i could add to that the large-capacity magazines that's used in mass shootings where you can shoot off multiple rounds without reloading. again, as we've seen in the mass shooting circumstances, that is added to the number of deaths. it's not inconveniencing the public to restrict that type of capacity to be out there that is known to cause harm by those who

want to create mass casualties. and yet, again, no action on the floor of the united states senate by the republican leader. we have bipartisan legislation that would identify those individuals who pose extreme risks so that there's a red flag placed on those individuals and preventing them from being able to purchase handguns. bipartisan legislation, our states are acting. no action on the floor of the united states senate. the republican leader will not even bring that up. and be we could go over a whole host of other issues, such as mental health, early identification, those types of services. there's a lot of things we can do, but i would hope the one option that would be off the table is doing nothing. and yet that seems to be the

preferred option of the republican leader, to let this issue rest without any action by the united states senate. madam president, over 200 days since the house of representatives have acted, and yet no action here on the floor of the united states senate. i urge all my colleagues to impress upon the republican leader that it's well past time for us to consider gun safety legislation. let us bring these bills to the floor. let us not wait for the president of the united states. we are the legislative branch of government. let us act and do the right thing to keep our communities and our homes safer. with that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader.

mr. durbin: i ask consent the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, let me join the senator from maryland in expressing my frustration. many of us working long and hard to be elected to the united states senate to not just represent our states, but to respond to the challenges facing the united states. the challenge of gun safety faces everyone. thank you to the senator from maryland for making that point on the floor of the senate. many people come to the senate galleries and sit in the chairs and wait for the senate to act. it's a long waiting game because, unfortunately, the senate does little or nothing under the leadership of senator mcconnell. i don't know why. this senator has not accepted the fact that the united states senate has an important role to play. we speak for people not only in illinois and maryland, but for all across the united states,

and they're very concerned. in a recent trip home over the recess, i visited some of the areas around chicago and the city, and there are -- were many conversations about the gun violence that we see across america. that gun violence is punctuated by horrible events in el paso, odessa, texas, and other communities that have been affected by these mass killings. we have become numb, i'm afraid, to the reality of gun violence in america. we have decided, i am afraid, that the second amendment to the constitution is somehow holding us back, binding us and restraining us from even doing the most basic things. overwhelmingly the people of america, by a factor of over 90% democrats and republicans believe that we should have background checks. we believe that people who have been convicted of a violent

felony shouldn't own a gun. period. we believe as well that when it comes to those who have serious mental instability, they should be precluded from ownership as well. the laws do not allow us to adequately ask the question or test whether the buyer has been convicted of a felony or has such a background. in the city of chicago, hardly a weekend goes by without dozens being shot, and nine or ten or more losing their lives. most of them young people, but not exclusively. older people as well are caught in the cross fire. people say, well, i thought chicago had these tough gun laws. what's going on there? why do you have so many gun deaths? well, the answer is obvious for those of us who spend time in

that great city. we're about 20 minutes away from northwestern indiana and the gun shows that are held there where people don't ask questions when they sell firearms. all you need to do is to have the money and have the open trunk in your car to fill them up with guns and drive them back to the city of chicago. that's why no state can solve this problem. we need federal legislation. as i talk to people across this country, they tell me the heartbreaking stories of sitting down with their children who have gone through some drill or program at schools to forewarn them of what would happen if an active shooter comes on the premises. that reality is not beyond reach, as we know. we saw in connecticut, beautiful first grade classroom that was attacked by a killer with a weapon that took the lives of those children.

if that scandalous massacre of children in a first grade classroom didn't move this congress or this president to act, what will? the president said to me in a conversation several weeks ago, we're going to have a background check bill. it will be the best in the history of the world. well, i was skeptical when he said it, even more skeptical today. i i knew it would happen when the president had a choice it the public interest of gun safety and the special interest of the national rifle association. the national rifle association prevailed. the president refuses to come forward with any proposal and senator mcconnell believes his hands are tied. he cannot bring this. he cannot run the risk that his members would have to be on the record taking a vote as they were elected to do on an issue of this importance. this is not the only issue we're

ignoring, the only issue which is frankly not being considered on the floor of the senate. there's another one that is equally important to me and to most people across this country and that is dealing with the challenge of immigration. a few years ago a bipartisan group of senator, eight of us, senator mccain, senator schumer and myself and others sat down and wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it took us months, republicans and democrats sitting down face to face night after night after night going through every section of our immigration code to come up with a comprehensive bill to deal with the shortcomings but we did it and brought it to the floor of the united states senate and received 68 votes, 14 republicans joining the democrats to pass this comprehensive reform. we sent it to the republicans in the house of representatives.

speaker boehner refused to consider it. all of our work really went for nothing. we continued to face the challenge of immigration. we know what it is at the border where we've seen under this president the worst border situation in modern times, his refusal to acknowledge the three central american countries which -- which were sending all the immigrants to the united states led to some horrible circumstances. recently the inspector general of health and human services came forward with a report on the trump administration's response to the border crisis. it was a report on the policy of zero tolerance. i'm sure you remember it. it was under attorney general sessions who somehow found a quotation in the bible to justify forcibly removing children from their parents.

we moved children from their parents at the border under this zero tolerance policy before there was an uprising in the united states against it and the president backed off of it. i commend the inspector general's report on what happened to those children to every american. i saw it firsthand. i witnessed these children having been removed from their parents and the trauma they went through as a result. so why aren't we debating immigration policy on the floor of the united states senate. i'm told that perhaps later today the senator from utah, the junior senator, at this point i think he's the senior senator from utah will come forward with the unanimous consent request to consider fixing one part of the immigration problem. i want to fix that problem and many more and i want to make sure that when we come to the floor to discuss immigration as we should, that we take up the issue of the dream act.

the dream act was a bill that i introduced in the senate 18 years ago. it said if you were brought to the united states as a child and you were undocumented in this country and gone through school and had no criminal record of any serious consequence, you deserve a chance to be able to eastern your way to legal status and citizenship. i introduced this bill 18 years ago. it's passed in the senate one year. the house the other. but it's never come up many times with the 60 votes, the super majority required in the senate. when president obama who was a cosponsor in the senate had the white house under his control, i asked him to consider an executive order to achieve the same goal and he did creating a program called daca. 790,000 young people across america paid the filing fee, went through the criminal background check and reftd protection to stay in this country and to work legally.

of course september of 2017 president trump abolished this program. it took away the protection these young people had. he was challenged in court and the court said we're going to continue this program until it's resolved at the highest levels of our federal judiciary as to whether or not president trump has this authority. on november 12 across the street in the united states supreme court they will consider that case. 790,000 lives, and more for that matter, lie in the path of that decision, hang in the balance of how the justices will make this decision in their future. this should be debated on the floor of the senate. it's why we're here. it's why we were elected. i think we can find bipartisan answers to many of these questions, but we need the senate majority leader, the republican leader, to really accept the reality of the senate actually going to work. instead of speeches by individual senators on the floor, as impressive as they

may be, we might actually pass a law. think of that, a bill coming to the floor subject to amendment, actual debate in the senate chamber. we'd fill the galleries. it's such a novelty. it doesn't have to be a war, and unfortunately for america, many issues, whether it's gun safety or sensible immigration policy or the victim of our inaction in the united states senate. we can do better and we should. ultimately the american people have the last word as to whether this senate will act on issues like gun safety and immigration. the last word is your vote. in the next election, i hope more and more americans will vote for a senate that responds to the challenges of our day and doesn't avoid our responsibility under the constitution. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all of our colleagues, the next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on monday. cloture on the mcguire nomination. madam president, i have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to

consider calendar number 176. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, joseph cella of michigan to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of kiribati, the republic of gnaw are you and the kingdom of tongue ga. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of joseph cella of michigan to be ambassador extraordinary and plenty of the united states of america to the republic of fiji and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the republic of kiribati, the

republic of nauru, the kingdom of tonga and tuvalu. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 367. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, daniel habib jorjani of kentucky to be chris tore. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, bethe undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to

bring to a close debate on the nomination of daniel habib jorjani to be solicitor of the department of interior. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the read are the names be waiv waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 292. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the crerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, social security administration, david fabbian black of north dakota to be dope si commissioner of social security. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in

correspondence -- ge great on the nomination of david fabian black to be deputy commissioner of sz signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the read are of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1044 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the

lee amendment, numbered 939 be agreed to, that the bill ab amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is

continue to work in the coming days to make it a reality. because this is a reform whose time has come and i'd like to take a moment to explain why it deserves support from my colleagues. again, we've got to take into account this passed the house of representatives with a vote of 365-65. it's not easy to find something that can garner that much bipartisan support. wrangling over the nuts and bolts in fine print details of 308 si -- policy as extremely as important as that is can at times allow us to lose sight of more basic foundational principles that should shape any

law or any set of laws that we put on the books among other things our laws should be consistent with our nation's deeply-held beliefs and values. a system of laws should also be clear and coherent meaning that it should not only give adequate notice of what is required in order for a person to comply with the law but it also should be something that is capable of being complied with. finally, the means employed by any law should be consistent with the objectives that that law seeks to accomplish. these are not partisan principles. they are simple yet incredibly important guideposts that should affect anyone entrusted with the legal system as we are in this chamber. unfortunately the laws we pass don't always live up to the standards of fair and effective and consistent law-making. one of the starkest examples of

our failure to abide by these same principles involves the way that we allocate employment-based green cards. few ideas are more central to who we are as americans than the notion that people should be judged and treated by their government based on their own merits as individuals, as individuals with inherent god-given rights and not on the basis of the color of their skin or of the country in which they were born. as our founders wrote, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. those words are as much of a part of our national creed in this moment as they were when they were written some 243 years ago. and our laws should reflect this. they should reflect the enduring truth found in those words which i believe were inspired, they

are inspirational to this day. i believe that they were inspired at the time they wrote them and that that's why they're lasting in their importance and their persuasive effect. despite this ideal, section 1152 of the immigration and nationality acts provides the number of employment base visas made available to any single foreign state in any year may not exceed 7% of the total number of such visas made available, close quote. that rather antiseptic language, technical and clinical on its face is on closer inspection deeply out of step with our country's commitment to nondiscrimination and to equal treatment under the law. in practice, section 1152's 7% cap on immigrants from any one country means that if two immigrants apply for an

employment-based visa at precisely the same moment and have the exact same skills and education and the other factors taken into account on their application, one of them may wait 12 months for a green card while his counterpart languishes in the green card backlog for decades. and that's not an exaggeration. i mean literally decades. the only factor that accounts for this gross and unfair, difficult to justify or defend disparity of treatment is the fact that the second immigrant in my hypothetical example happened to have been born in a different country than the first. they are otherwise identically situated to each other. one may processed within a year. the other may languish for decades. this is because under the per country cap system, immigrants from larger, more

populated countries are only eligible to receive the same number of green cards annually as immigrants from smaller countries. as a result, the wait times for immigrants from larger countries have grown and grown decade after decade with no end in sight. this amounts to a de facto cint of origin -- country of origin discrimination, plain and simple and no amount of legalese or wonkish policy arguments can cover up that fact. beyond its incompatibility with the deep and abiding principles upon which this country was founded, the per country cap system violates another one of those commonsense maxims of good lawmaking that i mentioned earlier. the need for clarity and for consistency in the law. title 7 of the civil rights act provides that it's unlawful for an employer, quote, to discriminate against any individual with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. and yet, the conditions created by the per country caps virtually guarantee that employers on some level must take into account the national origin when recruiting certain immigrant workers. if prospective hires from one country will be able to obtain a green card in 12 months while those from another, even from a country or even a person who happens to have superior training and skills will be unable to obtain a green card for possibly decades, it's virtually unavoidable that the employer will take national origin into account. so think about that. one section of the u.s. code

forbids employers from taking national employment into account when making employment decisions. another section makes it impossible for an employer to take that into account. the grounds on which that kind of system can be defended as sound public policy are beyond me. and the pernicious consequences of this intrinsically flawed system do not stop there. 95% of immigrants stuck in the green card backlog are already in the united states on temporary visas. in many cases they brought their spouses and their children with them to build a life in this country. yet, because temporary visa holders can only sponsor their foreign-born children up until the time the child turns 21, many in the backlog waiting decades for a green card are forced to choose between separating from their child as the child ages out of the

temporary visa or abandoning their dream of settling in america in order to return to their home country in order to keep their family together. in those cases, in the most heartbreaking among those cases of which there are sadly far too many, a child was brought here at a very young age and may have no memory of the country to which they would be forced to return. it bears repeating, this is happening not because these individuals broke the law. they haven't done anything wrong. and not because they don't satisfy the merit-based eligibility criteria needed to receive employment-based green card -- i understand that immigration laws do have consequences and we have to follow the law. but it doesn't stem from any violation of the law or any lack of eligibility stemming from any factor other than country of origin.

it happens for no reason other than the country in which they happened to have been born. now if that made sense, if there were some sound principle and public policy that anyone could point to, then perhaps we wouldn't have occasion to be talking about changing this law. perhaps we wouldn't have had 365 votes, democrats and republicans, join together in the house of representatives voting to pass this. the fact is i have yet to meet anyone in this body or in the house of representatives who can defend this flawed policy on its merits because it makes no sense. finally the per country cap system is irredeemably flawed because among its other problems, it's also incompatible with the goals that our employment-based visa system is meant to advance in the first place. the employment-based visa system is to supposed to enable american businesses to bring the

best and the brightest to this country, and yet under the per country caps, a factor that has nothing to do with a person's skills or merit, distorts and in many cases ultimately determines the recruitment process. this weakens the merit-based portion of our immigration system. indeed, it is directly at war with the supposed purpose of our employment-based green card system. despite its obvious deficiencies, the per country caps have been part of our immigration laws since the 1950's. it is something that came into our law during the elvis presley era, during the buddy holly era , not exactly something that was intended to remain on the books very long regardless of what they intended at the time

as far as how long it should last. i don't believe they had good, legitimate reasons to put it into law then. whatever reasons they had then certainly don't apply now. they're not even discernible to anyone i know today. so it's long past time that we replace that flawed policy with a more rational and equitable approach. fortunately the solution to these problems is not only straightforward but agreed upon by a broad bipartisan coalition of senators and of representatives. we must simply eliminate the per country caps in order to ensure a fair and reasonable allocation of employment-based green cards. that is exactly what the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act would accomplish. without the per country caps, our skills-based green card system would operate on a first come, first served basis,

ensuring that immigrants would be admitted into the united states based purely on their merit rather than their country of origin. this reform would also ensure the hardships caused by decades-long wait times are eliminated. as i've said in the past, there's no question that immigration is one of if not the most politically fraught issues in congress right now. it makes it all the more important for us, at least to come together, to get something done in the areas where we can find common ground. the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act is an important point of common ground. any immigration bill that has 35 senate cosponsors, 20 republicans and 15 democrats as this bill does presents a unique opportunity to secure a victory for the american people. the reason why this bill commands such widespread support if all points along the political spectrum is because as

i've explained, the arguments in its favor are not your typical partisan or ideological arguments. no, they're common sense about the way any rational legal system should work in that it makes clear that the per country caps system must go. that's what is needed to make our immigration laws consistent with our principles. consistent with other laws on the books and consistent with the merits-base objectives. this component of our immigration system is meant to promote. the other reason that fairness for high-skilled immigrants act has been so successful in attracting support from both sides of the aisle is because we've scrupulously avoided the typical poison pills that so often doom many good-faith attempts at immigration reform. this bill is not comprehensive in its approach.

it's not a comprehensive immigration reform package. it's not even close to that. and that is this fact why this bill is something that we can actually get down now. that's why this bill is so close to being passed. it's why this bill really should pass into law today. while it does not fix many of the other flaws that fix our broken immigration system, it is a great and vitally important start to reform. if we are ever to have a chance at modernizing and repairing our immigration laws, we need to recognize that we cannot necessarily solve all of our problems at once. the fact is that -- the fact that this is the case shouldn't stand in the way of us starting

to work on the issues that the american people set us here to solve. we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the excellent. that's why i've come here to seek unanimous consent to pass this legislation today. now look, i understand that it's drawn an objection. it's drawn an objection in a way that it drew an objection a few weeks ago from another member. we've been able to work through that member's concerns. i'm hopeful, i'm optimistic that my colleague who raised an objection today can be persuaded that this bill needs to be passed. we can address his concerns and that we can resolve them. i'll be working with my distinguished friend and colleague from georgia throughout this weekend to try

to find a solution, some explanation or if necessary language that can win his support. we're very, very close on what we believe is appropriate and acceptable. now, i remain steadfastly convinced that this law as written, as amended, as offered up by unanimous consent today could and should be the law of the land today. i believe it's ready for prime time. it's ready to become law. but when seeking unanimity on a measure in order to pass it, one must do everything one can do in order to seek actual unanimity and that is what i intend to do in the coming days. i intend to be back next week making yet another attempt to pass this bill into law, and i hope and expect that we will be

able to do so. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator for alabama. mr. jones: thank you. thank you, i appreciate your comment, the senator for alabama. that's exactly how i like to be recognized. so thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to appeal to my colleagues to support the renewal of vital funding for historically black colleges and universities and all minority-serving institutions. i have risen in this body on more than one occasion to talk about the importance of hbcu's and minority-serving institutions. alabama is home to 14hbcu's, more than any state in the country. they are part of the fabric of our economy in alabama, a part of the fabric of our society. they are the pride of their communities, and they're the pride of those folks who went there and had relatives to go there and even those individuals who are not alums or relatives

of alums. our hbcu's are a source of enduring pride in our state and across this country. they serve an incredibly important function. they educate those from underserved communities more than any college or university. and it is important that we continue to fund them because there are challenges with funding -- their challenges with funding are great. they do not have the endowments that other colleges and universities have. they don't have the source of funding, and it's only through our efforts in congress and across the country that we can continue the great work of these hbcu's. recently the house has passed what is known as the futures act, which is h.r. 2486. my colleague, senator scott, and i have a similar bill that has been introduced in the senate because at the end of september, all funding for hcbu's is set to end. our act would extend that. we need to make sure that we fund all of our hbcu's, because

i believe, i truly believe this is such a bipartisan effort that we can get this across the finish line. i have urged senator mcconnell to put this on the floor because it is quite urgent. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent to the senate that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 2486, which is at the desk, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for tennessee. mr. alexander: reserving the right to object, the senator from alabama is a valued member of the education committee, ensuring that historically black

colleges and universities have continued funding is something we all want to do. however, instead of a short-term patch, i favor a long-term solution, and i'm ready to do this along with a few other bipartisan higher education proposals that also have bipartisan support. here's what such a package could include. $255 million permanent mandatory funding for historically black college, reduce the number of questions on the fafsa that 20 million families fill out every year for federal aid that senator bennet and senator jones proposed. i would like to see the legislation pass again that reduces 22 questions on the fafsa. schatz, lee, and durbin proposed pell grants for prisoners. there is a proposal by senator portman and kaine and many other bipartisan senators on

short-term pell grants for job training. we could expand pell grant eligibility. we could increase the maximum pell grant award. these are all things we should be able to agree on, including the historically black colleges. i've been talking with senator murray now for several years about reauthorizing higher education act. i intend to discuss this all with her and with our committee members next week. we have the time to do it, because while the language expires at the end of this month, money doesn't for several more months. so in the meantime, i would hope that we could work together as we often do in our committee to pass a short-term, a smaller package of higher education proposals, including a longer-term proposal for historically black colleges while we continue to work on the reauthorization of the higher education act. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator for washington.

mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. what we're seeing today really disappoints me. we have today a straightforward opportunity to prevent a critical part of our higher education system, hbcu's, tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions from having to deal with a lapse in funding. and we should take it. this is bipartisan legislation. it has passed the house. there is no reason at all to delay it a minute longer here in the senate. so i want to thank the senator from alabama for his leadership on this, and i express my personal strong support for the future act which will give us time to work out a permanent fix for funding hbcu's and tribal colleges and minority-serving institutions through a comprehensive h.e.a. reauthorization which i declare is necessary. i appreciate what the senator from tennessee said about moving forward with higher education reauthorization. i'm hopeful we can continue to work on reaching a compromise as

we have done on several other pieces of legislation. as i said before, i believe any reauthorization of the higher education act needs to have real answers to the challenges students are facing today on affordability, access, accountability and campus safety. i truly believe we have an opportunity to get a comprehensive bill done that helps solve the challenges for students. so i hope the senator from tennessee and our colleagues on the help committee continue to focus on our efforts there. meanwhile, i believe we should listen to the senator from alabama. we should pass the bipartisan future act instead of playing politics with a valuable and underresourced institutions. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: