country. minority-serving institutions have long enjoyed bipartisan support in this body. so it's perplexing and concerning to think that the senate would depart for recess without passing this critical legislation. afford to short which change their education? mr. menendez: i believe that 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 short which change their education and 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's 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's 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 two million hardworking 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 if that designation did not yet exist at the time. ive was the first in my family to attend college and i did so at st. peters college in jersey city, new jersey. it's because the professors at st. peters recognized that not all children arrive at college with the same advantages or opportunities for upward mobility that i'm here today, one of four hispanic american senators. and it's a story that's repeated not only in hispanic-serving institutions but at hbcu's and other m.s.i.'s 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 roll call. now, i understand it there are many other issues facing our

higher education system, and i appreciate that. i'm committed to working with my colleagues, particularly senator alexander and murray, the chairman and ranking member of the help committee to help create a system in this country that serves all of our students and prepares america's workforce to compete all around the world. but the fact is 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 that future act today. with that i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i appreciate the comments from the senator from new jersey. just to be clear, the house bill for historically black and minority-serving institutions creates a new funding cliff. it's a short-term patch for two years that creates a cliff after two years. it's supported by a budget gimmick that can't possible pat

the senate. so what i have proposed is a permanent solution. get rid of the cliff. a permanent solution that those institutions and those students can depend on. $255 million a year fully paid for. that is the proposal. second, the united states department of education has written us a letter to congress and said no one is going to lose their money at the end of the month. the law expires but the money doesn't. there's enough money to continue the program for another year. it shouldn't take us another year to work this out. and third, it is urgent to deal with historically black colleges but let's look at the students, not the colleges. who goes to historically black colleges? low-income students often go there. and 20 million low-income americans every year fill out this ridiculously complicated fasa, the application for student aid that is 108 questions which we agree on both sides of the aisle and have for several years could be limited

to 17 to 30 questions. and the president of the southwest community college in memphis, tennessee, 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 fasa. so let's do both of these things, madam president, 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's no need to wait on that. we have republicans and democrats who agree on it. we could finish this up in a matter of a few weeks. no one is going to lose any money. there's enough money for historically black colleges for a year and there's no excuse for creating a new cliff to replace the one that will occur in a year. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to speak on the nomination that will occur before the senate shortly on the nomination of eugene scalia as secretary of labor. and i think it's important to say that as president trump continues relentlessly pursuing his antiworker agenda, now more than ever we need a secretary of labor who will stand up to the president and stand with working families, not someone like scalia who is an elite corporate lawyer who has made his career fighting for the biggest corporations and against workers. we need someone who will fight for strong health and safety protections, not someone who has crusaded to strike them down. we need someone who will hold companies accountable, not someone who uses his last position in the department of labor to undermine whistle-blower protections and fought to get his corporate clients off the hook for

workplace harassment and discrimination against workers with disabilities. we need someone who is going to fight for workers' economic security, not someone who's helped companies get away with stealing their workers' wages and denying overtime pay, and not someone who avoids committing to supporting to our efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or close the pay gap. and certainly not someone who costs working families billions of dollars by fighting to strike down a crucial rule that made sure they could get retirement advice that was in their best interest. we need a secretary of labor, not a secretary of corporate interests. but at our confirmation hearing last week, scalia paid very clear that's exactly what he would be, by dodging, taking a stand for workers, and deferring to president trump's antiworker agenda. i've been deeply concerned about his awful record since day one. i strongly oppose his nomination. i urge my colleagues to do the

same. everyone needs to take a long, hard look at who mr. scalia fights for and who he does not and think carefully about the message their vote will send to working families in our country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up my amendment 942 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, popes an amendment numbered 94 -- proposes an amendment numbered 9342. 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. mr. paul: my amendment to this spending bill will be to cut 2% across the board so we could actually be responsible and try to balance our budget. most people that i talked to at home or people who come up here who are seeking assistance from

the federal government say, well, that doesn't sound too bad, 1% or 2%, we can 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? $100 million. i say well, we have a trillion dollar deficit 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? and most of them, even groups that live at the federal trough, groups that need and want, all they come for is federal money, well, that's not unreasonable. we got a hundred million dollars last year. could you take $98 million for the good of the country? instead of getting $100 million, could you take $98 million, 2% less in order to balance the budget, in order not to destroy the country with all of this debt? and interestingly, whether these groups are from the left, the right, the center, republican, democrat, independent, most of them look at me and nod their

heads. think the groups that receive federal money realize that this massive deficit that we have is destroying the country. even the groups receiving it, are willing to cut 1% or 2% but you know who's not? the senate. the congress. they won't cut anything. so my bill today, my amendment to add a 2% cut to the spending will get 15 or 20 votes. not one democrat will vote for this bill. you know what the democrats will say? oh, the deficit, the deficit is because you cut taxes. this is something that is factually incorrect. we did cut taxes. but guess what? revenue is up. this is a fact. we cut the tax rates but the economy is growing gang busters and revenue is up. why do we have a massive deficit? why are we breaking records? why in february did we have more deficit added than at any time in our history? why are we now about to bust a

trillion dollars in deficit this year? it's spending. it isn't revenue. revenue is up. we did cut tax rates and companies are growing like they haven't grown in decades. the biggest problem in our country right now if you talk to businesses, they can't find enough people to work for them. there's a labor shortage in our country. it's a great time to be a worker in our country. but this will not pass. my amendment won't pass because people are afraid that the public won't like them if they don't give them more money. i'm afraid we'll destroy the country if we keep running more deficits. the deficit is growing 8% a year. spending is only growing 4%, 5% a year. the deficit is growing more rapidly because we've accumulated so much. we have over a $22 trillion deficit. this year the interest is over $300 billion. but as it grows faster and faster, the interest will exceed what we're spending on the

military within about five years. and nobody is doing anything about it. five years ago we passed spending caps. it was called the sequester. and it went on for a while and actually was reducing the deficit. but then you say whose fault is it that we've got this massive deficit, this massive spending? is it republicans or is it democrats? the answer is yes. both parties are fiscally responsible but it has nothing to do with taxes or revenue. revenue is going up dramatically. it has to do with spending. and both parties are guilty of this. the republicans want unlimited military spending and the democrats want unlimited welfare spending and people say well, there's not enough compromise in washington. absolutely untrue. absolutely misreported by the media. there's too much compromise here. the compromise is always to spend more money and to spend money we don't have. so the military gets their money

unlimited 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, sometimes to send it back to china. you realize we send economic development aid to china. how ridiculous is that. but we send money all around the world. many of these countries who get money don't like us. they hate us. they burn our flag in the street and yet we send them money. we're not even sending our own money. we borrowed it from china to send it out. i think this is a very reasonable proposal. some will say it's draconian but you know what? if they passed my amendment today and we cut spending by 2%, we would still be spending more money than we spent two years ago. we would be spending $19 billion more than two years ago. if we pass my 2% cut, the two-penny cut that i'm proposing, we would still be spending more money than the caps than the vast majority of

the senate voted on five years ago. why is the deficit burgeoning? whose fault is it? is it republicans? is it democrats? the answer is yes. both parties are asking -- are acting fiscally irresponsible. has nothing to do with tax revenue and has everything to do with spending. people say the people want it but do the people want a bankrupt country? do they want a country that's being eaten from the inside out? do they want this reckless spending that some day will lead to a day of reckoning? no. i think we have to get our house in order. get our budget in order. and i think we need to balance our budget. if my amendment were to pass, a 2% cut, how many families have had to deal with 2% less? how many businesses in bad times have to cut their budget by 2%? if the government were today to pass my amendment, 2% cut, that means you get 98% of everything they're spending. we'd balance the budget within five years. that's ostensibly what many republicans say they're for.

we've had a vote for a balanced budget. everybody lines up and all the republicans vote for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution that says the budget will balance within five years. but then when given the opportunity to vote for spending cuts, we lose half the republicans. the democrats don't care. they will not vote for spending cuts. but republicans at least profess to be for spending cuts. but yet when we offer a modest proposal like this, we lose half the republicans. there is a problem with deficits. both parties share some guilt. what i have put forward today is an opportunity for senators to truly believe the deficit is a problem to try to restrain spending with a 2% cut across the board. i hope senators will consider voting for this amendment. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back the time. the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment 942.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 24, the nays are 73, and the amendment is not agreed to. order in the chamber, please. the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 213, h.r. 4378, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the bill.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, the yeas are 82, the nays are 15.

the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, air force, the following named officer for appointment as vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and for appointment in the united states air force to the grade indicated well assigned, general john e. hyten. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 1:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to give tribute to a great american, a great texan, a dear friend, and a 26-year veteran of this institution who has dedicated her career to serving the needs of her fellow

citizens. her name is shea woodward hall. shea has worked as the west texas regional director on my team for seven years. she's now retiring. shea started working in the senate in 1993 when she was hired by my predecessor, senator kay bailey hutchison. as west texas regional director, shea started with 89 counties this her region. by land area, that's bigger than some states. shea could leave her office in abilene, drive seven hours north and still be in her region. that's how much territory she was responsible for. shea has always been willing to go the extra mile, literally. in her first three years working in the senate, shea put 75,000 miles on her car.

in fact, she's put so many miles on her vehicles throughout the last 26 years that it's probably for the best that she married a local car dealer in abilene. after 26 years, serving 89 counties in west texas, everyone knows shea and shea knows everyone, from every mayor to every county judge and sheriff to every state elected official, shea made it a point to know them all. in fact, when i traveled with shea in west texas, we would arrive at an event and there was no doubt who folks were happier to see, me or shea, and it sure wasn't me. shea's also known in west texas for her rural tours. therl legendary -- they are legendary. shea's region spans from amarillo to lubbock to big spring to midland, odessa.

on the last tour she planned, an ag tour, we started in lubbock with stops in mule shoe, fredonia and amarillo. if you know texas, that's one heck of a big loop. on one of the stops, i asked shea what we would be seeing that day, and she answered strippers. i was fairly puzzled at that response, and she quickly clarified cotton strippers. i was relieved. there are too many stories of shea helping people in west texas, but one of my favorite stories is about how shea helped bring the b-1 bomber to texas. when the city of abilene and the air force base were working to secure low-level training routes for the b-1 bomber, shea received some questions and some concerns from local ranchers who were afraid the noise would

upset their cattle. always the steady hand, shea responded with some west texas wisdom. she'd tell them that the low-level training routes were good for our national security, that they would enhance the air force base as the premier b-1 base in the country. and finally she'd tell them that she hadn't received a single phone call from a cow protesting the noise. well, i'm proud to say that because of her efforts and many others, those training routes remain, and texas is one of the homes today of the b-1 bomber. shea has become a living legend in west texas because no problem is too big and no problem is too small. she wants to help anyone and everyone who calls her with an issue. she often helped people in stressful situations, navigating the leviathan of big government on behalf of fellow texans in their time of need.

shea doesn't take no for an answer. if she didn't get the answer she needed to help a fellow texan, she didn't give up. she has been a tireless and effective member of our team. that's her legacy, and i know it will endure. shea is retiring next month, and while we will miss her greatly, she will remain a friend, she will remain family, and we wish her well as she begins her well-earned retirement. the senate, the people of texas, and the thousands of people and families that she has helped over the course of 26 years of service will miss her too. thank you, shea, for your work, your determination, your passion, your patriotism, and your love for texas. texas says thank you. god bless you. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: will the senator withhold? mr. cruz: yes. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i guess i shouldn't be surprised. i've seen two and a half years of betrayal of american workers from this white house and this government, this senate, the president of the united states, the white house looks like a retreat for wall street executives except on the days it looks like a retreat for insurance executives, except on the days it looks like a retreat for drug company executives. i guess i shouldn't be surprised. but when we saw a few weeks ago the nomination to be secretary of labor of eugene scalia, it just underscored again and again the betrayal of american workers by this government, by this president. eugene scalia, he's the president's nominee to serve as secretary of labor. his job, secretary of is to represent workers, to advocate for workers, to fight for workers, not to advocate for corporations, not to sell out

to special interests but to side with american workers. yet, all you've got to do is look at his job. the president has sent us a corporate law who has fought over and over to stop workplace protections, to undermine worker safety, to cut and to press workers' wages -- depress workers wages over and over and over again. mr. scalia as a corporate, is an elitist, multimillion-dollar corporate lawyer, has repeatedly defended companies against whistle-blowers. he defended walmart against its workers. he's nominated to be the secretary of labor. he defended a corporation against 30 women who had been sexually harassed at assembly plants. and he's going to be the secretary of labor? he defended other corporations against workers with disabilities after the companies violated the americans with disabilities act. and he's going to be secretary of labor? over and over he fought to help the most powerful corporations

against workers, asking the courts, asking the courts to put their thumb on the scales to choose corporations over workers, to choose wall street over consumers, to choose health insurance companies over patients. he's always come down on the side of corporate interests, of special interests, always in the end betraying workers. and he's the president's nominee to be secretary of labor? he's defended union busting corporations. boeing has been rabid in its antiunion coercion. scal ial worked for them -- scalia worked for them advocating for them in their quest to stop workers from having a voice in their company. and he's going to be the president's secretary of labor? what mr. scalia doesn't understand and what president trump doesn't understand is you can't say -- let me back up for a second. the president loves to say that he supports, that he's for

workers and workers are his friends, that he's a friend for workers. what he doesn't understand is you can't support workers individually without supporting workers collectively. you can't support workers individually without supporting workers collectively. you can't support workers if you attack unions. and we know what unions have brought to this country. ever since the generally rapid decline of trade unionism, we've seen wages flat, benefits cut, retirement taken away from workers. you know when people can organize and bargain collectively, they have higher wages, they have better health care, they have a retirement system. you can't support workers if you attack unions like mr. scalia has done. we need a secretary of labor who will actually fight for labor. it's not called the secretary of corporate interests or the secretary of special interests. it's called the secretary of

labor. you're supposed to honor work and respect work. we need a secretary of labor who will fight for labor, not fight for corporate interests. it comes down, mr. president, to whose side are you on. are you on corporation's side or american workers' side? you fight for wall street wealth or do you fight for the dignity of work? the president promised to fight for american workers. if you love your country, you'll fight for workers. instead this president has betrayed them over and over and over again. the appointment, the nomination of eugene scalia to be secretary of labor is the biggest betrayal of them all. i note the absence of a quorum. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator for oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: mr. president, general hyten is before the senate today to be confirmed. we're anxious to get this. it's been a long time in the working and it's going to happen today. and i'm very thankful not just for the sake of general hi it ten but for -- for general hyten, but other officers, officers looking at a future and knowing the problems that exist out there. i've stood on this very spot and talked about exactly what our nation is dealing with when it comes to our national security. the world is more dangerous now than it's ever been in my lifetime. china and russia are noting their caibts capabilities as we've fallen behind. our national defense strategy lays it out. we have a document we use, our blueprint, put together by democrats and republicans some time ago. we adhere to it and as chairman

of the armed services committee, i have adhered to it. the department of defense explemented the national -- implemented the national defense strategy. we need confirmed leadership at the joint chiefs to provide the military perspective. we need strong innovative leadership, someone who understands strategy and competition, new war fighting domains like space and other important, strong nuclear deterrent. we need strategic guidance, someone with firsthand experience. to me there is no doubt that general hyten is the right man for the second highest ranking military officer. throughout his service, general hyten has developed a reputation of discipline, integrity and honor. for the past two and a half years he has led stra atcom where he developed an

understanding of national security objectives and before that he served honorably in top leadership positions at the air force space command. he has willingly and selfishly served this nation in uniform for nearly four decades. i'm confidence he's going to keep us on the path to rebuild our military and our military advantage, protect our civilian military relations and all of this that we fell behind on. the senate considered his nomination yesterday for a vote to advance general hyten's nomination, and here we are today making this final decision. this came after a fair, exhaus exhaustive bipartisan process where we closely reviewed his nomination, including allegations that were against him. the air force office special investigations ran a tight, thorough investigation. in the years i've been here, i have never seen one that's more exhaustive than this one. it went on and on and on.

and all the members of the committee were able to read every document that's out there. and i -- i'm very proud of the committee for taking the deliberate time to make this happen. so the committee held five executive sessions, studied thousands of pages of investigative records, and reviewed statements from more than 50 witnesses. every member had the opportunity to ask questions, to read all the documents, and we did. the armed services committee made available the information to make sure nothing was overlooked. the armed service committee takes allegations of sexual assault very seriously and has for many years. it is a problem. it's a problem that has been -- that we are addressing on a regular basis. we are on it. we are going to resolve it. but you know, we went through a period of time in the last administration when the -- the military was taken down in a

manner that has never happened before. it's unprecedented. we actually went in the last five years of the obama administration cutting the military by 25%. it's never happened before. and now we have been through a rebuilding process. i applaud this president for all that he is doing in rebuilding our military. i'm proud of him and that's where we are right now. and through the ndaa and the oversight of the department's efforts to this end, we're putting a stop to the -- any kind of misconduct that we've been talking about. we can't stop a nomination from going forward on unproven allegations, especially ones we examined with the utmost of care and closest scrutiny and determined not to have merit. so we are about to do this, about to get this position confirmed. it's overdue. i urge my colleagues to support this nomination. with that i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the nomination. a senator: the yays and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: