Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate.

Mr. President, late last week we learned of the apology by the Internal Revenue Service official about the targeting of certain information and applications for 501(c)(4) organizations in this country. Certainly the indication is that because of certain words generally considered to suggest that organization has conservative leanings, those organizations were targeted for different or additional treatment at the Internal Revenue Service. It was indicated there was an apology offered. This became a significant topic of conversation over the weekend by certain elected officials, certainly by my colleagues in the Senate but by the American people as well.

Last Wednesday, May 8, before this revelation was known, the Appropriations Subcommittee for Financial Services was holding its hearing--usually an annual affair--in which we were discussing the appropriations request in the President's budget for the Treasury Department. That gave me the opportunity to visit with Secretary Lew. Of course, the Internal Revenue Service is a component of the Treasury Department. My conversation with Secretary Lew during that hearing dealt with a related topic.

While I have great objection to targeting any group--liberal, conservative, Republican, Democratic-leaning--certainly the ability for us to examine an application is important. But none of us would expect or consider it to be appropriate that the Internal Revenue Service would treat one application different from another based upon its apparent political leanings.

While that is terrible enough, I also want to point out the topic I raised with the Secretary, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, last Wednesday. This comes from media reports and from complaints by organizations. The reason this seems so important is the admission that conservative groups were treated differently or one group was treated differently from another within the Internal Revenue Service lends credibility to press reports and to complaints by organizations across the country about their treatment by the IRS.

My questions to Secretary Lew, some of them that day but also submitted in writing since then, deal with a number of instances in which it was reported by an organization or a press report that the Internal Revenue Service improperly disclosed information about donors to 501(c)(4) organizations. Last April, the IRS apparently improperly disclosed schedule B donor lists on the form 990 of an organization called National Organizations for Marriage. It is an a 501(c)(4) group. While the form 990 is publicly available, tax laws and IRS regulations make clear that the schedule B--that is the donor list on the 990 is not to be released for 501(c)(3)s or (c)(4)s.

The issue was raised. The organization complained. It was reported in the

press. Part of my inquiry to Secretary Lew is what has transpired since that point in time. Have the employees at the Internal Revenue Service who released this information been challenged for their actions? Have they been admonished? Have they been treated appropriately for what clearly seems to be an inappropriate release of private taxpayer information?

The second example was the IRS turned over several applications for nonprofit status, including the pending applications for tax-exempt status, for several groups. They were released and ended up in the hands of an organization called ProPublica. Again, while the applications for nonprofit status are available to the public after an exemption is granted, they are protected as tax return information while that application is pending. This organization then published that information, despite that that is what I understand to be a felony. Publishing unauthorized tax returns or return information is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $5,000 or both. Again, my question of the Treasury Secretary is that I have not been able to confirm any action has been taken, any recommendation from the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, that anybody be prosecuted for publishing private taxpayer information.

Finally, we learned earlier this year, again, of something described as an inadvertent IRS disclosure related to releasing one page of the schedule B showing donors to the Republican Governors Association. These are alarming in and of themselves and become more significant to me, having learned that there is a bias, a treatment different of one taxpayer over another at the IRS. While it is important for us to determine, and I am anxious to read the inspector general's report as to the findings about what occurred with the singling out of certain organizations for a different kind of treatment at the IRS, I also think it is important for us to pursue the issue of the release of information that comes from one organization's filing that is inappropriate to release and ultimately its being used by an organization that apparently has a different political perspective than the one whose application is pending.

Again, I would raise this issue that now we know something is wrong at the IRS, there is more to be discovered as we look at how this information was released. Were people who released it punished? Is there any pending criminal action against the individuals who published this information?

I am surprised by the circumstance we find ourselves in. I never would have expected this from the Internal Revenue Service, which must be, needs to be, and has to be above the political fray.

The IRS can never be an instrument of any political party, of any administration, or of any political philosophy. All Americans have the right to assume that the IRS, which has great powers and consequences upon the taxpayers of this country, is operating in a neutral, fair, and appropriate manner.

The circumstances now present themselves in a way that we have to wonder about more than just these three examples. These three examples are ones now worthy of additional concern by Members of the Senate, and, even more importantly, by the IRS and individuals within the administration who are responsible for the management and governance of the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.

I have submitted a series of questions to Secretary Lew. As a member of the Appropriations Committee responsible for the Internal Revenue Service's appropriations, I look forward to seeing what those answers are and to make certain appropriate action is taken in regard to individuals who apparently have violated the public trust, with the understanding that all of us expect the privacy the Internal Revenue Service is to provide.

Once again I want to outline that while we learned something over the weekend that is very troublesome, there may be much more to this story that has yet to be told, and I am anxious to see the answers that come from the Treasury Department in regard to the Internal Revenue Service.

In fact, I encourage all Members of the Senate to reach the same conclusion--no matter their political leaning or philosophical bent, whether Republican or Democrat--that the Internal Revenue Service with its tremendous enforcement capabilities and the tremendous consequences it has to the American people in the decisions it makes always be above the political fray.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to outline an extended concern I have about actions at the Internal Revenue Service. I anxiously wait for the Treasury Department to respond and provide answers to our subcommittee, committee, and the full Senate.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I recently had a great conversation with an individual, August Busch, III, the longtime president and CEO of Anheuser-Busch. We talked about the state of the economy. We talked about the desire to get jobs created and the country back on solid fiscal footing.

That conversation reminded me of the opportunities we have here in the Senate and the Congress to work together to see that we enact policies here in the Nation's Capital that would make a real difference in the everyday lives of Americans by creating jobs, by making certain our business climate is beneficial to large and small businesses. In that climate, they then would have the opportunity to add additional employment opportunities for all Americans.

In this overly partisan climate of Washington, DC, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we should all be working toward that same goal of getting our economy back on track.

I think the No. 1 issue standing in the way of robust economic growth is the uncertainty that continues to be there--as described, in part, by my colleague from Missouri in regard to the Affordable Care Act-- with Americans in general and people making family as well as business and investment decisions about where we are headed with our national debt and our deficit spending.

As elected officials, Americans expect us to confront our Nation's fiscal challenges and not push them off into the future. But last year's budget shortfall--just to remind us of the facts--reached $1.1 trillion, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. This out-of-control too much spending we have in our government has increased our national debt to a record $16 trillion, which is more than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in 2012.

The fact is our current fiscal state is the responsibility of many Congresses and several Presidents from both political parties. It is not always the opportunity we sometimes take to point fingers, but it is that over a long period of time we have allowed ourselves to live way beyond our means, and it has gone on far too long.

When I was elected to the Senate, just about 3 years ago, I was invited to the White House to have a conversation with my colleagues and President Obama. The conversation was all about deficit spending, the national debt, and the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, since that time, it has been pretty much business as usual in Washington, DC, and almost no progress has been made. It is time for us to get beyond the conversations and the rhetoric that too often is pretty empty around here and get down to the business of making real changes in the way we conduct our business.

First and foremost, we must reduce the government drag on the private sector. Startups in small businesses--the real job creators in this country--are being held down under the weight of a 74,000-page convoluted Tax Code and $1.75 trillion worth of redtape.

Every single job creator I meet, whether it is at a townhall meeting back home in Kansas or here in Washington, DC, tells me their story and asks for our help. What they tell me is we have to reduce the massive regulatory burden. The overwhelming cost of compliance prevents many small business owners and entrepreneurs from hiring new employees, expanding their facilities, and growing the economy.

Second, in addition to the regulatory environment, we have to say no to spending and yes to projob measures. This will help reduce the uncertainty in the marketplace, encourage business investment, help us become more competitive in the global economy and, most important, create jobs.

The President's solution is to raise revenues to balance the budget. But the President's tax increase proposals would only cover the deficit for just a few weeks. I would be pleased to be convinced that if we increase taxes, the money would be used to pay down the debt. I don't think I am overly cynical, but my view of history, my review of the facts suggests that every time there is more revenue--more money sent to Washington, DC--more money is spent. History shows money raised in Washington, DC, only results in more spending in Washington, DC.

The revenues we need to balance our books are not from increasing taxes but revenues that come from a strong and growing economy. We are not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that government spending on health care entitlements, Social Security, and interest on the national debt will consume 100 percent of the total revenues by 2025. What that means is that money the government spends on national defense, transportation, veterans, health care, and other government programs will have to be borrowed money. That drives us further and further into debt.

So regulations, getting the deficit under control and on the right path toward a more balanced budget, and then, third, we must take serious action to address the $48 trillion in unfunded obligations found in Social Security and Medicare.

These programs represent promises that were made to Americans and, in my view, are promises that must be kept. Because of my family's circumstance--my parents--I pretty much know what life is like for people who utilize Social Security and Medicare and the benefits they provide for their lives at that stage in life we all aspire to reach. When Social Security was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt, the average life expectancy was 64 years of age and the earliest retirement age to collect the benefits was 65. Today, Americans live 14 years longer, retire 3 years earlier, and spend two decades in retirement.

So we have gone from a time in which Social Security was envisioned to be used for a short period of one's remaining life expectancy to a Social Security System that now is a source of income and support for people through a couple decades of retirement. That means we have to change the way we support Social Security in order to fit today's demographics: more people retiring, more people living longer with insufficient revenues to meet those programmed needs.

When this year's kindergarten class enters college, spending on Social Security and Medicare, plus Medicaid and interest on the debt will devour all tax revenues. Congress can and should begin today--and should have started a long time ago--to address these questions concerning the sustainability of these very important programs.

Lastly, to get our country's fiscal house back in order, Congress should consider adopting many of the bipartisan recommendations put forth by the President's own deficit reduction commission. The cochairs of the Commission have warned--this is the Simpson-Bowles Commission-- if we fail to take swift action and serious action, the United States faces ``the most predictable economic crisis in history.''

In other words, we know it is coming. One would expect that people who know something bad is on its way--an economic crisis is coming-- would take evasive action to avoid the consequences. Yet the President and Senate leadership have ignored the recommendations contained in the Simpson-Bowles report and generally continue to spend borrowed money without regard for those consequences--without regard for what we know is coming.

I don't want Americans to experience the day when our creditors decide we are no longer creditworthy and we have to suffer the same consequences as those countries that ignored their financial crisis. One needs to look no further than places in Europe--Greece, Italy, Spain--to see what high levels of national debt will do to a country's economy. Out-of-control spending is slowing America's economic growth

and threatening the prosperity of future generations that will have to pay for our irresponsibility.

Thousands and thousands of young Americans will be graduating this month. Typically, I would guess many of my colleagues will be giving graduation addresses and encouraging our graduates to go forth and pursue a great life. We ought to also be telling ourselves that for our college graduates to go forth and pursue that wonderful life, we need to make changes in the way we do business and get our country's economic condition and fiscal state to a place where the American dream can be expected to be pursued and, in many cases, achieved.

I am fearful that while my parents' generation handed off a country where the expectations were high--we all felt we could live the American dream--my generation is failing to do the same for the generation that follows ours. We must not fail to take action now and leave it for another Congress, another year, another session, another election. If we fail to take the action we need to take today because we believe it is too difficult; that we can't afford the political consequences of making what some people describe as very difficult decisions, we clearly will reduce the opportunity of the next generation to experience the country we know and love, and we will diminish the chances they can pursue and achieve the American dream.

I had someone in my office recently who travels the globe, and he indicated to me that every place he goes, people around the world know what the phrase ``the American dream'' means, and they all want to pursue the American dream. But the reminder was that more and more the American dream is pursued outside of America because of the inability of this Congress, the failure of past Congresses and Presidents to come together and do the things that are responsible for today but, more important, responsible for the well-being of Americans in the future.

Not one of us was elected to ignore problems. People tell us, each one of us, all the time of some circumstance or condition that is a challenge to them. I have no doubt that each one of us in the Senate tries to figure out how we can help. The American people are experiencing a problem. Our country faces a challenge, and we ought to respond in the same way we respond individually to our own constituents when we say: How can we help? What can we do? We know the answer to those questions. We just need to have the will, the courage, and the desire to work together to address the issues and make certain America is a place we are proud to pass on to the next generation and that no American, because of our inability to act, is unable to pursue that beautiful American dream.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, April 15 has now come and gone, known as tax day to most Americans. Millions of Americans filed their returns last month and many took into account in filing that return the dollars they contributed to charitable and worthwhile causes. According to an organization called Giving USA, Americans gave nearly $300 billion in 2011 to support important programs and services, from food pantries and medical research to youth programs and seed grants to start new businesses. Because of those generous donations of millions of Americans each year, not-for-profits have impacted the lives of countless individuals for decades.

An example back home in my State, an example of where a charitable contribution made a tremendous difference in the life of an individual is William Wilkerson, a 16-year-old from Overland Park, KS. At age 3, William was diagnosed with moderate to severe bilateral hearing loss.

After visiting several doctors, William was taken to Children's Mercy Hospital, where he was fitted with his first set of hearing aids. He later put into words what he experienced that day: With so many different things that I had never heard before, it was as if somebody had turned on the world!

Denise Miller, the manager of the Children's Mercy Hearing and Speech Clinic, said this about the importance of donations: Because of the donor support we receive, we are able to fit the most appropriate hearing aids on each and every child, based on their own unique needs.

In 2011, the clinic fit nearly 500 patients with hearing aids bringing the world of sound to their ears and changing their lives forever.

Nonprofits like Children's Mercy Hospital depend on the generosity of Kansans and other Americans to help support their ongoing care for children.

But President Obama has proposed changes to the 100-year-old tradition of providing tax incentives for charitable giving that could significantly diminish this support for nonprofits.

In the President's 2014 budget is a proposal to cap the total value of tax deductions at 28 percent for higher income Americans--including the charitable tax deduction.

According to the Charitable Giving Coalition, this proposal could reduce donations to the nonprofit sector by more than $5.6 billion every year. This reduction amounts to more than the annual operating budgets of the American Red Cross, Goodwill, the YMCA, Habitat for Humanity, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Catholic Charities, and the American Cancer Society combined. A reduction in giving of this magnitude would have a devastating impact on the future of charitable organizations in our country.

Given our country's current economic situation, more Americans have turned to nonprofits for help in recent years. According to the Nonprofit Finance Fund, 85 percent of nonprofits experienced higher demand for their services in 2011 and at least 70 percent have seen increased demand since 2008. Our country depends upon a strong philanthropic sector to provide a safety net for services, especially given the tighter local and State budgets.

Americans understand the value and impact of the charitable deduction, which is why a recent United Way Worldwide survey found that two out of every three Americans are opposed to reducing the charitable tax deduction.

Nonprofits are best equipped to provide assistance on the local level and can often do so in a far more effective manner than many government programs. Studies have shown that for every $1 subject to the charitable deduction, communities will receive $3 in benefits.

The Federal Government will be hard-pressed to find a more effective way to generate that kind of public impact. Congress has previously acknowledged the benefits of private investments and regularly passes charitable giving incentives in the wake of a natural disaster to encourage more giving.

Last October, when Hurricane Sandy tore across the east coast, the storm left thousands of residents without the basic necessities of life: food, water, and shelter. Within 6 weeks, the American Red Cross served more than 8 million meals, provided more than 81,000 shelter stays, and distributed more than 6 million relief items to thousands of residents impacted by the storm.

In times of crisis, Americans depend on relief service organizations such as the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, and the Salvation Army--all not-for-profit organizations whose main purpose is to help their fellow citizens when they need it the most.

Nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity also help families make a fresh start in life after a disaster. In May of 2007, an EF5 tornado swept through my home State of Kansas devastating 95 percent of the town of Greensburg.

Diana Torres, a single mom, had lived in Greensburg for nearly 7 years when the tornado destroyed the home they were renting. Diana faced the likelihood of having to move out of State when the Wichita Habitat for Humanity stepped in with 1,400 volunteers to build a new home. Thanks to special financing and donated supplies, Diana could afford to purchase the home for her family.

Executive director of the Wichita Habitat for Humanity Linda Stewart said those who support Habitat ``know they are making a difference in someone's life that lasts for years.'' That is what not-for-profits do every day across Kansas and around our country. They make a difference one life at a time.

Since the founding of our Nation, neighbors have been helping other neighbors. They lend that helping hand that is so often needed. The charitable deduction is one way to encourage that tradition to continue.

Any change in the Tax Code related to charitable giving would have a long-lasting and negative consequence, not necessarily to the generous donor but, more importantly, to the millions of Americans who rely upon the services provided by a charitable organization. With our economy still recovering and the tremendous need for charitable causes, the President should be encouraging Americans to give more, not less, and Congress should reject this administration's proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. President, next month, Americans across the country will gather on Memorial Day to remember the sacrifices made by generations of men and women in service to

our country and to preserve our freedoms.

There is no group of Americans I hold in higher regard than our Nation's veterans. Their service and sacrifice have allowed us to live in the strongest, freest, and greatest country in the world. We should, in the Senate, utilize their service as our role models.

America's veterans have fought tyrants and terrorist to keep our country safe and secure. Yet when they return home from war, they have to continue to fight many battles.

Veterans are struggling to find a job. The unemployment rate for the post-September 11 veteran remains well above the national average of 10 percent.

Some veterans continue to face difficulties accessing quality health care services, especially those as in my State where there are rural areas and long distances to travel for the care they need, and many veterans must wait long periods of time for their benefit claims to be processed by the Federal Government, which is what I would like to highlight today.

Honoring those who served our country certainly means more than paying tribute to them on Memorial Day. It means keeping our promises. We owe our Nation's veterans the absolute best--the best health care, the best educational opportunities, the best support possible to help them continue to have successful lives after their service to our country. But all too often, veterans tell me they had to wait months-- and in some cases years--for their benefits to be processed. This is simply unacceptable.

I served on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for 14 years. I now serve on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Making an improvement in the quality of life for our Nation's veterans is one of my top priorities, and I want to continue to raise the concerns that are raised to me until progress is made.

In January of this year, the VA outlined a strategic plan to reduce their enormous claims backlog. According to this new plan, they estimate they will resolve around 1.9 million claims in 2015, which is an ambitious goal because that would be roughly an 80-percent increase in the productivity over the 2012 level.

I certainly appreciate Secretary Shinseki's commitment to eliminating the backlog of claims and his initiatives to transform the claims process, but there is evidence against the VA's assertion that the claims backlog will be remedied by 2015.

In the 2010, the VA projected that by this year--2013--it would take 160 days per claim to reach a decision. But in the first quarter of this fiscal year, it actually took more than 270 days per claim. It seems the numbers are, once again, continuing to be headed in the wrong direction.

In fact, the number of claims considered backlogged--or have been pending for more than 125 days--grew from fewer than 150,000 in 2009 to 600,000 in March of this year. In total, about 70 percent of the currently pending claims are considered backlogged.

The Presiding Officer has probably heard the saying that past performance is a good indicator of future performance. If this pattern continues, my fear is--and reality suggests--this problem only gets worse.

As we draw down in Afghanistan and the Armed Services reduce their force structure, the number of service members who will rely upon the VA will increase significantly. If the VA is not able to adequately handle claims now, how will the process work when even more veterans claims are being submitted?

As recently as September of last year, the inspector general of the VA found that the VA had not yet fully tested their new system, which is supposed to help them process these claims more efficiently. At that point, the new system could not even process a claim from the beginning of the end of the rating process.

I met recently with Kansas veterans who were here in Washington, DC, as part of national veterans service organization--the American Legion, the Disabled Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--and their No. 1 concern is the unreasonable amount of time it takes for benefits claims to be processed.

Oftentimes the conversations I have are with folks who have an urgent need related to their home or health care, but they are stuck waiting on the VA to get back to them. I know my colleagues in the Senate experience the same kind of stories. These are real individuals, with real needs, whose lives are impacted when their benefits claims go unresolved day after day.

A step in the right direction was announced this last Friday from the Department of Veterans Affairs: The VA is finally responding to our concerns about claim backlogs and expediting the process for claims that have been held for more than 1 year.

It is absurd a veteran would have been waiting for 1 year or more to have claims processed, and I am pleased to see the VA is taking action and I am glad the message is being heard. I hope it has success.

Nonetheless, we certainly know that challenges remain, and it is important to me that the VA get to the bottom of this issue and come up with a solution to improve the claims process and eliminate this backlog in a timely manner.

The government is not the only industry that has to process an enormous volume of benefit claims. Large insurance companies process claims successfully every day, so the VA should consult with the private sector and learn from their experiences a way to process claims. The VA does not need to waste more time and money recreating the wheel when solutions may be ever present in the private sector and within the agency among those who service claims.

Until then, Congress should continue to hold the VA accountable as to how they will resolve this problem in a real way, with real results for our veterans.

We must never forget that our country has a responsibility to its veterans. The brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve our respect and that means receiving the benefits they have earned in a timely manner.

Especially at a time when more and more troops are transitioning out of the military, and the needs of aging veterans are increasing, I am committed to keeping our promise to those who have served our country.

Remembering Don Concannon

Mr. President, I also wish to speak this evening about a Kansan who recently died and pay tribute to his life. My tribute this evening is to Don Concannon. Don Concannon of Hugoton, KS, is an example of a life I admire and respect so much. He exemplifies so much the folks from my home State of Kansas. It is a tribute to the folks at home who get so involved in their local communities. They volunteer at school. They serve on their church board. They get involved in public service. Kansans are always looking for ways to improve the lives of those around them, their friends and neighbors and people they do not even know.

One of those Kansans is our former Republican Party State chairman, Don Concannon. We have lost a great man, a strong advocate and a dedicated public servant when Don recently passed away.

Don grew up on a farm in southwest Kansas and graduated from Garden City High School in 1945. Early on in life, Don began serving our country when he joined the U.S. Navy and fought in the South Pacific during WWII.

After the war, Don graduated from Washburn Law School in 1952 and moved to Hugoton to practice law. It didn't take long for him to get involved in his new community because one month after his arrival, Don was elected Stevens County Attorney and went on to serve the county for four years in that role.

That same year, Don married Patricia June Davis and spent the next 49 years by her side before her passing in 2001. Don later re-married his wife of the past ten years, Sharon Collins.

As a young man, Don became interested in politics and at the age of 32, Don was elected Chairman of the Kansas Young Republican Federation. The following year, Don served as Chairman of the Kansas Presidential Electors for the presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Then, from 1968-1970, Don served as the Chair of the Kansas Republican Party. His zeal for politics never faded and kept him involved for many

years--chairing committees in support of his favorite candidates. He even put his name on the ballot one year for Governor but fell short by just 530 votes in the primary.

As a long-time Kansas resident, Don was well known and respected by many throughout our state, but especially in Southwest Kansas.

Don was a strong advocate for rural Kansas and the special way of life we enjoy in small communities across our great State. Through his service on several committees focused on the future of rural Kansas, Don helped make certain the next generation can return to the towns and communities they call home.

From his participation in Kansas politics to his public service career, Don was always looking for ways to serve his fellow Kansans and improve their lives. In recognition of that service, Don was awarded a lifetime achievement award by Washburn Law School in 2010.

His family and friends described him as someone whose generosity, enthusiasm, and overall optimism towards life touched the lives of so many. It has been said that Don had the character of ``one in a million,'' and that he did not ``just participate in life, but made life happen.'' Don had the unique ability to connect with just about anyone, but he was especially revered by his family and friends who looked up to him in many ways. Don lived each day to its fullest and his commitment to his fellow man serves as an inspiration to us all.

I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his wife, Sharon, his son, Craig, his daughter, Debra, and his many grandchildren. I know they loved him dearly and will undoubtedly miss him. I ask my colleagues and all Kansans to remember the Concannon family in your thoughts and prayers in the days ahead. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have filed an amendment, No. 233, that I would like to visit with my colleagues about this evening.

I am pleased we are debating a budget. Budgets have great purposes in individual and business lives, and they are certainly important to us as we try to solve the country's fiscal problems.

A budget is a document that determines how much money we have to spend and how we are going to spend it. In determining how we are going to spend money, we establish priorities.

I want to talk about one of my priorities for the investment of our taxpayer dollars. Kansans and citizens from across the country pay their taxes. In many ways, they would be pleased by having to pay taxes if they knew the money was being well spent. One of the areas where I strongly believe we can prioritize and that money can be well spent is in support of the National Institutes of Health.

We have a tremendous opportunity to continue to lead in the world's research to solve individuals' problems with their health, with the treatment of disease, in eradicating disease, and treating the people of our country and really the people of our world.

This amendment I am going to discuss adds $1.4 billion in spending for the National Institutes of Health. Our citizens and our country face a significant challenge. There is not a family in our Nation who has not suffered from the consequences of cancer and other horrendous diseases. We have seen tremendous success. America leads the world in finding cures and treatments for those diseases.

A problem is, the funding for NIH has remained at a virtual standstill since 2010. In my view, those who come to Congress with the desire to make sure every dime, every nickel is wisely spent, and those who come to Congress with the belief that we need to care for people and provide compassion to all, can come together and jointly agree that money spent on the National Institutes of Health is both. It is a sense of providing well-being, comfort, care, and treatment for people who desperately need that, and it is the realization that when we invest in research, in projects that ultimately cure a disease, we are saving money. We save money by curing and treating diseases, which then means that the cost of health care is reduced.

Long before Congress passed a so-called health care reform bill, I outlined to my constituents in Kansas what we could do to save health care costs. One of the points in my plan was to invest in medical research because money invested today in research saves lives and reduces costs.

There is also the reality that the United States of America is the place to do research. But we are facing tremendous challenges because of the flat line of NIH spending and the lack of real dollars available for medical research. In fact, we have to worry that there is a brain drain, once again, going on in the United States. Other countries are investing. Other countries with more difficult economic challenges than ours are increasing their funding for medical research.

I have always worried that if we do not compete, if we do not maintain a steady opportunity for research scientists in the United States, we will lose the edge and the economic and health benefits that come from having that edge in a global economy.

Our own Director of the NIH, Francis Collins--highly regarded and with tremendous background, intellect--has indicated that we are seeing the potential for a brain drain. This is what he said in February of this year, just last month:

Since 2003 the NIH budget has basically lost about 20% of

its purchasing power by effectively flat budgets that have

been eroded by inflation.

The consequence of that to grantees who send us their best

ideas in hopes of being supported is that their chance of

being funded has dropped from about 1 in 3 which is where it

has been for most of the last 50 years now down to about 1 in

6 . . .

Imagine yourself as a young investigator [a scientist] with

a great idea, ready to tackle it and to do so in your

university setting somewhere [in the United States] knowing

that you have only a 1 in or less chance of getting funded,

seeing that there seems to be no real clear path forward for

achieving stability in the support of biomedical research,

wondering whether you can legitimately speak to young people

who are wanting to follow in your path about whether this is

a path they should choose.

Dr. Collins says this deeply worries her. At a time we need to encourage our children to pursue degrees in education, science, research and medicine and the absence of continued increase in funding for health research, for biomedical research, we clearly send a message this may not be the career you wish to pursue. At the same time as other countries increase their support for biomedical research, we send a message, even though you decide you want to pursue this career, maybe you should pursue it someplace else. This is a serious problem which desperately needs our attention.

I am going to ask my colleagues to support an amendment which establishes a clear understanding of the value of biomedical research, both again that opportunity to increase the longevity of our lives, to improve the quality of our lives, to combat those diseases which are so devastating to so many families in our country, knowing when we do that, not only are we improving individual lives, the well-being of families across our Nation, but we are also investing in an opportunity to reduce the long-term costs of health care in the United States.

This issue is one of great importance to me, and I can't imagine there is a Senator in our Chamber who hasn't experienced the challenges of disease and death in their own families. We have seen tremendous strides in turning this around. It is so clear to me we need to make certain those strides continue.

I was pleased to have the Senator from Illinois seek me out on the Senate floor this evening to suggest there is an opportunity for us to work together. While I have an amendment filed, Senator Durbin and I are having a conversation tonight, tomorrow, to see if there is a way we can come together in a joint amendment to fully establish all of us are in favor of funding the

NIH, the National Institutes of Health, at a magnitude and a level which will again restore us to the forefront of medical research around the globe.

We will send a message to our students and future scientists America is the place medical research should occur and where they should pursue their careers. Disease can be conquered and lives can be restored. Most important, there may be hope in the United States. The serious and debilitating diseases, the causes of death so many families face day after day and year after year, can be cured and treated.

I look forward to those conversations with my colleagues to find the right words to bring us together to demonstrate significant and real support for funding the National Institutes of Health.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss with my colleagues here in the Senate an amendment I have filed to the continuing resolution that is now pending before the Senate. It is amendment No. 55. I have spoken about this issue on the floor previously this week but want to reiterate the merits of this amendment and ask my colleagues for their support.

Amendment No. 55 deals with this issue of air traffic control towers. Under the administration's plan in implementing sequestration, the plan is to close, on April 7--just a few days from now--173 air traffic control towers across the country. The amendment I wish to offer avoids that. The administration would no longer be able to do that. I believe they should not for numerous reasons, but what we do, in order to accomplish that, is to transfer $50 million from two accounts, one dealing with research at the Department of Transportation and one dealing with unencumbered balances.

This is an example of what we have talked about before: that we can make better decisions than across-the-board cuts. In fact, the amendment I wish to offer deals with an issue that is not even an across-the-board cut.

In closing the contract towers, in eliminating the Contract Tower Program, the administration is cutting that program 75 percent. Sequestration is described to us as, in most circumstances, an across- the-board 5-percent cut. The amendment I wish to offer continues the 5- percent cut. That would occur for the air traffic Contract Tower Program, so that they would be treated like other programs at the Department of Transportation and throughout government, that they are not singled out for elimination of a program, resulting in a 75-percent reduction in that program's funding, not just the more minor 5 percent. So the administration's decision to close contract towers is far from balanced, and in choosing this program, in my view, has taken the opportunity to damage the safety and security of the flying public of America.

I want to talk about that in a moment. But there was also the suggestion that this is a provincial argument on my part, that it is something I care specifically about for Kansas, my home State. Certainly there is not anything wrong with caring about our home States. That is what we do here, and it is part of our responsibility. But this is far from just being a Kansas issue. Many States and Members of the Senate are more greatly affected by this cut, this elimination, than my home State.

In fact, this amendment has the sponsorship of 26 Republican and Democratic cosponsors. More Democratic Senators here are cosponsors of this amendment than Republican Senators. It is Senators Roberts, Inhofe, Blumenthal, Blunt, Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar, Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine, Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker.

It does not sound very provincial to me. In fact, 42 States will have their air traffic control towers eliminated. This amendment is broadly supported by the aviation industry. If there is an aspect of this that is unique to Kansas, it is that we manufacture many general aviation aircraft. We are the air capital of the world. But this amendment, while being supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, by National Business Aviation

Association, the National Air Transportation Association, is also supported by the American Association of Airport Executives and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

Again, it is not a very provincial amendment when sponsored by so many of my colleagues, affecting 40-some--43 States of the United States, and broadly supported by the aviation industry as a reasonable, commonsense solution to a problem we face.

I have been adamant about bringing this amendment to the floor. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I will have the opportunity-- in fact, I serve on the subcommittee that deals with the Department of Transportation. I should and hope to have the opportunity to deal with this and other issues related to the Department of Transportation in the normal appropriations process that, hopefully, will follow the passage of a budget. So I ought to be in a position to be helpful to the cause I believe in at a point later in time.

But here is the problem: The air traffic control towers will close on April 7. We will never get to an appropriations process between now, here at the end of March, and April 7. So the Appropriations Committee and, ultimately, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President will never have the ability to restore a program that is gone April 7.

So while I have tried to put myself in a position to be helpful to the cause in the long run, there is no long-run battle to be fought because the control towers are gone in just a matter of a few short days.

This amendment matters. This is my last opportunity. If and when cloture is invoked later today on the underlying bill, there is no opportunity for amendments to be considered. So my colleagues who indicate to me so strongly that they support my amendment, this is the only opportunity we have to have success.

This clearly is not about my success in an amendment. Although I would love to have the opportunity for this amendment to be voted on, it may or may not pass. But the Senate ought to work its will in making that determination. With the broad support of the industry, with the broad support of my colleagues here in the Senate, one would think this is an amendment which is at least worthy of a vote. That has not been the case.

So it is important for me to again reiterate to my colleagues that if you invoke cloture this afternoon or later this morning, if you invoke cloture, there is no other opportunity for us to address this issue, this problem. So let me again request the opportunity.

I lay awake last night from 3:30 on trying to figure out what it is I can say to my colleagues to get their attention about why this is so important. There are lots of things that can be said. We have so little time before this is either a program that existed in the past and will no longer exist in the future--the consequences are so dramatic that I would again ask my colleagues for their assistance in at least bringing the amendment to the floor so that the Senate can make a decision, yes or no, about the merits of the amendment.

This is about safety. There was an article I just happened to read today in reading my clips from Kansas. This is in a Kansas paper, but it is an AP story from Chicago. The article is entitled ``Trouble in the Air,'' and here is what the AP reporter writes about the planned shutdown. The article says:

The planned shutdown of nearly 240 air traffic control

towers across the country under federal budget cuts will

strip away an extra layer of safety during takeoffs and

landings, leaving pilots to manage the most critical stages

of flight on their own.

But airport directors and pilots say there is little doubt

that the removal of this second pair of eyes on the ground

increases risk and will slow the progress that has made the

U.S. air system the safest in the world.

It's not just private pilots in small planes who stand to

be affected. Many of the airports in question are serviced by

major airlines, and the cuts could leave towers unmanned

during overnight hours that some big-city airports such as

Chicago's Midway and General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee.

The plans have prompted airlines to review whether the

changes might pose problems for commercial service that could

mean canceling or rescheduling flights.

Without the help of controllers, risk ``goes up

exponentially,'' said Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham

Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Ill., which could see

its tower close.

But many in the aviation sector are frustrated by the

political brinkmanship in Washington that has affected such a

sensitive area of aviation. Jim Montman, manager of the Santa

Fe Municipal Airport, which is on the list for tower

closures, said the absence of controllers raised the risk of

midair collisions ``or some sort of incident where somebody

lands on the wrong runway. . . . That critical link is

gone.''

Pilots are trained to watch for other aircraft and announce

their position over the radio during approaches, landings and

takeoffs. But past crashes, however rare, have exposed

weaknesses in that system. On November 19, 1996, a 19-seat

United Express flight landing in Quincy, Ill., collided with

another twin-engine turboprop that was taking off. They

slammed into each other at the intersection of two runways,

killing all 14 people aboard the two planes. The National

Transportation Safety Board concluded the probable cause was

a failure of the pilot in the outbound flight to monitor the

radio frequency for air traffic and to properly scan for

other planes. ``If a tower was there, it's highly likely that

the accident would have been prevented,'' said Hanna, who

became the director of the Quincy airport about two years

after the crash.

The 238 air traffic control facilities that could be closed

were chosen because they are at airports with fewer than

150,000 flight operations per year. They are located in every

state.

Again, the point of this amendment is not whether or not I find the right words to convince my colleagues to allow this amendment to come to a vote. As much as I struggled through the morning hours trying to figure out what those might be, the real issue is not about my words or my personal success in getting this amendment considered, but it is about the safety of Americans.

I cannot figure out why this amendment cannot be made in order. Again, broad support--broad support with Republicans and Democrats. I have had many Senators, including very senior Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle, come to me and express amazement that this amendment, so broadly supported, so important, cannot be considered. I cannot come up with an explanation. I do not know why this is the case.

Every Senator I have talked to about this amendment tells me they do not oppose it, it ought to be voted on, they support it. Yet for some reason the Senate is incapable of agreeing to even a vote on an important and critical amendment that promotes the safety of the American people. I can only guess--and it is always difficult to attribute motives, but as I talk to my colleagues, the only explanation I ever get that has any semblance of truth is that there is a point to be made here. By denying the amendment's passage, we prove that sequestration cannot work; we cannot cut money from budgets.

Again, I did not vote for sequestration. So when the majority leader says this morning about the hatchet being taken to programs and it is all bad--I did not vote for sequestration. I believe in the appropriations process that allows us to make these decisions to increase funding for some things, decrease funding for other things, and eliminate programs. Yet sequestration, in my view, has an effect upon all programs equally, whether they are effective or ineffective, whether they are valuable or invaluable. We treat them the same.

So I am not here on the cause of sequestration, but apparently there are those in this city, in Washington, DC, who want to make the point that if the air traffic control towers are eliminated, it will demonstrate once and for all--I don't know; to Republican Senators, to Senators in general, to Congress, to the American people--that there is no opportunity to cut budgets.

If people want to make that point and if they can convince people that it is true that there is no opportunity to eliminate $85 billion in spending, that is fine with me. That is what this place exists for, is for us to have the debate about whether we can reduce spending, increase spending, what our Tax Code ought to be, what the value is of government services and programs and how they ought to be funded. But if it is true that the reason this amendment is not being considered is because we want to prove a point--that there is no money to be cut, that sequestration is a bad idea, that reducing spending is a bad idea, that we have to raise taxes--if that is the point that is trying to be made here in the process of denying this amendment's consideration, then

it is a very dangerous way to try to prove a point.

Prove your point in argument and debate about the merits of spending, about the merits of the program. Prove your point in the Appropriations Committee, in which we take testimony and hear from people about what is important to them, priorities, what their needs are, what their wants are, what has value, what does not. But do not try to make the political point about this topic by reducing the safety of people who fly in and out of communities across the country. As the article said, this reduces the nature of our air traveling safety from the best in the world to something less than that.

So make the point. Have the debate and argument about the value of sequestration, about the value of what money we spend and do not spend. But let's not try to prove the point by reducing the chances that the American people, when they travel, are safe and secure in our airways.

I do not know, and I hope this is never the case--this point may never be proven about the safety, but once there is an accident and someone dies and a plane crashes, the question will always be, what if there had been an air traffic control tower there? What if we had left the program in place?

These communities that have the air traffic control towers have spent years in developing a plan to put them in place, have worked with the FAA and the Department of Transportation over decades to bring their airports and airport safety, flying safety to high standards. An issue here is that this is going to disappear overnight. So you can be an airport manager, an airport authority, a member of an airport board anyplace in the country with 200-plus air traffic control towers, and you have worked hard over years, decades, to get the standards in place and to have the air traffic control process at your airport. In one day, April 7, one night, the lights go off in the tower. They no longer exist. All the work you have tried to accomplish on behalf of your community and those who fly in and out of your airport disappears in one stroke.

So I speak with a level of passion about this issue, for really the purpose of which I think we are here to do, which is to advance the common good of the American people. It is not a provincial amendment. It is not something that just Moran and Kansas need. There are many States much more affected by this. But the truth is that every American, every person who flies will have less safety and security in the skies as a result of this issue, as a result of the decision made by the Department of Transportation to eliminate this program.

So, once again, I intend to ask later in the morning, when our leaders are on the floor, for unanimous consent to bring this amendment forward before the time expires. In my time in Congress--I have only been in the Senate a little more than 2 years--I have not been trying to be obstreperous. I have not tried to be difficult to deal with. I believe in the opportunity to reach out and work together. I followed the rules. I did what everybody tells me to do: Go find people who support this amendment who are Democrats and Republicans, bring them together.

And as the leader said earlier in the week--I guess it is now last week--earlier last week about how we are going to get back to regular order, we are going to have amendments offered, I hope we can dispose of them quickly, we have an opportunity to do that with this amendment. It is not controversial. It is not partisan. It is about something that ought to be of importance to all Americans, certainly to every Senator.

Later in the morning when the leaders are present, I will ask unanimous consent once again that we consider this amendment. I know there are others who want to offer amendments. I see my colleagues from Arkansas and Missouri on the floor. I know they have an amendment--I think it is No. 82--with which they want to offer the opportunity to address a problem by taking money from one account and putting it in another account in order to keep meatpacking plants operational, that we have the meat inspectors present at the plants. Boy, that is an important issue too. That is about the safety and security of Americans. It is about food safety. I hope no one objects to the amendment Senators Pryor and Blunt are going to offer this morning. That is another amendment which is very similar in nature, about deciding that we are smarter to spend money here than here.

As the Pryor-Blunt amendment comes before the floor, I would ask my colleagues, just as I would ask them to grant unanimous consent, I hope no one objects to their request for unanimous consent that their amendment be considered. I would ask that no one object to the amendment I intend to offer. I certainly will not object to the Blunt- Pryor amendment. I wish it was leverage to get my amendment considered, but it is too dangerous to play that game. That is what we do here in Washington, DC, is strike a deal. In this case, when we strike that deal, we are leaving people behind whose lives are going to be adversely affected.

I certainly will not stand in the way of people who work in the meatpacking industry and the consumers of meat products across our country, in the way of trying to solve a problem that is clearly there. I hope their amendment receives unanimous consent, and I hope it passes by this Senate's will. I would ask the same thing. When the appropriate time comes, I will ask for the same thing on an amendment that is about the safety and security of American people.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence and at least his appearance of listening to me.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next quorum call be equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I too have an amendment that I have been attempting for a number of days to have made in order. This is the amendment that deals with the air traffic control towers. It is an amendment that very directly and simply transfers money from two accounts that have lots of money in them--the unencumbered balances of the Department of Transportation as well as a research fund--transfers $50 million from those two accounts to the air traffic control program. If we do that, we can at least avert--at least what the Department of Transportation says is necessary to eliminate that program--closing more than 170 air traffic control towers on April 7.

I spoke earlier this morning, and I intend to speak before the vote occurs. I

will not repeat myself at this point in time, but this morning I outlined--and I hope my colleagues were listening--the importance of this amendment to the safety of the traveling public. The modest nature of what we are trying to accomplish has the bipartisan support, as well as the wide range of support, from groups outside the Congress that support this amendment.

I again ask unanimous consent to amend the previous order and bring up my amendment. It is amendment No. 55, that 10 minutes be equally divided, and we proceed immediately to a vote on that amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, when I was on the floor this morning, I outlined the merits of an amendment I tried to have to this continuing resolution. It is amendment No. 55. It is an amendment that deals with the air traffic Control Tower Program that the Obama administration has indicated will be terminated on April 7. I don't want to go over all the things I talked about this morning, but I do want to talk about how we got to the point we are today in which apparently this amendment is not going to be considered by the Senate.

This morning I indicated how, in my view, important this amendment is. I read from an AP story from Chicago about how air safety was in jeopardy. There were indications that a plane crash which occurred previously would not have occurred if there had been an air traffic control tower present. The complaint by Americans is that our aviation sector is so frustrated by the political brinkmanship which goes on in Washington, DC.

Again, this is an important amendment that is about the safety and security of the American people--particularly those who fly. It is amazing to me that despite the continued efforts to bring this amendment to the floor for consideration--not that I expect any guarantee. There is no such thing as a guarantee that this amendment would pass. But the inability to have it even considered is very troubling and surprising to me.

Last week when we started on the continuing resolution, I was pleased to hear what the majority leader said about the process on the CR. This was not stated years ago or months ago, it was just last week. The majority leader said, when he was talking about the continuing resolution: There will be amendments offered. We are working on a process to consider those amendments. This week we will be off to another opportunity for the Senate to return to regular order, an opportunity for this body to legislate through cooperation, through compromise, as we used to do. This legislation will be a test of the Senate's goodwill. We are anxious to move forward and start doing some legislating. We are going to take all amendments and try to work through them as quickly as we can. I hope we can move forward and set up votes on every one of them.

That is the announcement that was made as we started the continuing resolution. As the majority leader indicated, this legislation will be a test of the Senate's goodwill. I think the Senate has clearly failed the test of goodwill. But more than goodwill, we are failing the American people in taking the steps necessary to secure their safety.

This is not an amendment about me or an amendment about Kansas. Certainly, I am talking about my home State. There is nothing wrong with representing our home State which is affected by the loss of these control towers. There are 43 States--almost all of us--that have control towers. On April 7, they no longer will be operating.

I indicated this previously, that one of the reasons why I thought this amendment, perhaps above others, should be considered is because the Control Tower Program will be eliminated April 7. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation. I will work to see that these programs are continued once we get to the regular appropriation process when the CR is behind us. My colleagues and I will never have the chance to do that because in a matter of just a few short days the control towers will be gone. They will be closed. The lights will be turned off.

So my role as an appropriator and as a Member of the Senate--which I share with 99 other Senators--and the idea that we would then come back and restart a program that has disappeared is not going to happen. In the absence of

this amendment passing--in the absence of this amendment being considered and passing--the ability for me to do my job on behalf of a program that I think matters to the American people disappears.

I have never tried to be a difficult Member. I believe in collegiality. I believe in the goodwill the majority leader talks about. But I cannot imagine what I was supposed to have done. It is an amendment that is germane. I am not here trying to offer an amendment that doesn't matter to the bill at hand. I am not trying to score political points, I am not trying to put Democrats on the line for casting a vote that the voters might object to. There is nothing here that is political or partisan in nature. I did what I thought I was supposed to do.

There are 26 cosponsors of this amendment. More than half are Democrats. The Senators include Inhofe, Roberts, Blumenthal, Blunt, Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar, Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine, Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker. If 26 of us in that group can agree upon the value of an amendment, why is it the Senate cannot even take a vote on a germane amendment that is broadly supported? It is broadly supported outside the Chamber of this Senate. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Business Aviation Association, National Air Transport Association, Association of Air Medical Services--they believe this is important for the ability of LifeWatch patients--NATCA, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and the American Association of Airport Executives.

This is not a provincial issue that Moran is all about trying to take care of something for himself, nor is it about trying to create political difficulties for anybody. We broadly agree on a bipartisan basis that this amendment should be made in order.

I have been in the Senate for a little more than 2 years. I served for a number of years in the House of Representatives. One of the things I thought was true and why I sought the opportunity to serve in the Senate is that it would be different from the House. Any Member of the Senate ought to be here--whether Republican or Democrat--on behalf of their ability to offer amendments.

We had a debate about changing the rules and the proffer was made that if we would agree to change the rules, amendments would be made in order. I thought that was a positive development.

Now, it seems to me, while I left the House in hopes of having the opportunity to represent my constituents as best as I know how and to represent America as best I know how, somebody stands in my way. I can't find out who that is. I have not talked to a Senator who is not supportive of my amendment. Every conversation I have is, well, I think it is a good idea. I don't know why it is not being made in order. There is no good explanation.

Who sits down and develops the list and decides which amendment is important and which one isn't? This ought to be something that is not turned over to a one-person Rules Committee.

Again, the House and Senate are structured differently. This is a historic body with a legacy of allowing debate, discussion, and amendment. And, again, not for purposes outside even the nature of the bill we are talking about, how can it be controversial to transfer $50 million in a bill that has more than $1 trillion of funding, of spending? How can it be so difficult to transfer $50 million from two accounts--unencumbered balances and a research account--to save air traffic control towers, leave them in place until I at least get the opportunity to work with my colleagues to extend their life through the appropriations and legislative process into the future.

So for a Senator such as myself--I lay awake last night from, I don't know, 3:15 to 4:30 trying to figure out what I could say that would convince my colleagues to support this amendment or to allow whoever is making the decision that it can't even be debated and heard and voted on--I don't know that there are any magic words. It does concern me. It bothers me greatly.

We ought to all be here protecting the rights of each and every other Senator. This is important to us as a legislative body, not to us and our egos as Senators. It is not the sense that we have the right to say everything--we are Senators, we are important and powerful people--it is that on behalf of the American people, a person such as myself who represents 2\1/2\ million Kansans ought to have the ability to bring a germane amendment to a bill on the Senate floor.

Had we brought these amendments forward, had we agreed to debate and pass my amendment, we wouldn't be here today still stalled on moving forward to conclude this business and move to the budget. We could have debated the amendments and voted on the germane amendments days ago. But for some reason we once again get bogged down in somebody deciding that this amendment qualifies to be considered and this one doesn't.

So this is another example of where--again, I guess if we were to tell the story to the American people, it would be that today we are going to pass a bill that spends $1.1 trillion, and we have had four or five amendments offered and perhaps approved, maybe a couple more today.

This bill has not worked its way through the Appropriations Committee. It comes from the House. We take it up immediately. It is written so perfectly that only three or four individual Senators have the opportunity to alter the bill--not the guarantee to change the bill but the opportunity to suggest to our colleagues whether it makes sense and then cast a vote, yes or no, based upon whether what I am saying has merit. We can't get to the point at which I am given the opportunity to explain on the Senate floor why this amendment is something that is important.

I came to the Senate from the U.S. House of Representatives in hopes that the Senate was different, where individual Members have value unrelated to their relationship with the Speaker or the minority leader of the House, unrelated to my relationship with the members of the Rules Committee. I have not always been the most perfect follower of my political party. I have tried to do what I think is right, and therefore I have not always developed the relationship I needed in the House to be able to get my amendments considered on the House floor.

The Rules Committee is there for a purpose. It is a very unwieldy body, the U.S. House of Representatives, of 435 Members. Here we have 100. Surely, based upon the history, the legacy, the rules of the Senate, we have the ability as Senators, whether we are in favor or disfavor and whether our amendment meets with a person's satisfaction on behalf of the American people, we have the right to represent their interests and have votes taken.

The majority leader said the other day that I am an obstructionist. I lay awake last night thinking, I am not an obstructionist. I am following the rules. The majority leader said this morning that we need to show that sequestration is damaging to the country. I didn't even vote for sequestration, and yet I can't fix a problem that is caused by somebody else's vote. Again, it is so baffling to me how this works.

I finally found somebody who would tell me they oppose my amendment. Today I talked to the Secretary of Transportation, who said: The administration opposes your amendment. So maybe that is the explanation. I have asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why I can't--a person who followed the rules, who did what one would think one should do to get an amendment made in order--why can't this amendment be heard?

The only explanation that I guess makes sense is that there are those in Washington, DC, who want to prove we cannot cut spending without consequences that are dramatic. OK, prove that point. Come to the floor. Have the debate about spending, about budgets, about taxes. Have this conversation about whether we can afford to cut spending. Prove it to us. Take the votes. Demonstrate that it can't be done. But to use sequestration as the example for why we can never cut any money from any program, particularly on the amendment I am offering, is dangerous. What it says is, we want to make a political point, as compared to

worrying about the lives of the American people who fly.

So this circumstance in which I find myself--again this morning I lay in bed realizing that the radicalization of Senator Moran is occurring. The only way, apparently, to get an amendment heard is to be difficult. It is not my personality. It is not my nature. But on behalf of Kansans and Americans, if what it takes is for me to become more difficult to deal with so my amendments are considered--it is not about me personally--so amendments that matter to my constituents and, at least in my view, to America can be heard--you have to make yourself a pain around here if that is what is required in the Senate. I hope that is not the case.

I hope the majority leader is right that this is the path by which we are going to get back to regular order. I want to be a member of the Appropriations Committee that works, debates, and discusses, we listen to witnesses and figure out that we can spend more here, but we have to spend less money here; this program matters, and this one is inefficient.

I voted against sequestration because I don't believe across-the- board cuts are responsible. What that means is that everything deserves the same reduction. There are things that we do well and that are appropriate for the government to be involved in, and there are things that we do poorly and that the government shouldn't be involved in. Yet we treat them all the same. I want to be a member of the Appropriations Committee that says: We are going to evaluate each one of these programs and make decisions about spending, and we are going to choose to spend money here and not here, or the decision will be made by the Senate and the House and the President that we are going to raise revenues so we can spend more money.

But that is not a reason to block this amendment. It is not a reason to say that those people who are going to be traveling out of 179 airports that have control towers--that their lives are going to be less safe and secure and run the potential of loss of life and injury as a result of us trying to prove the point that we apparently can't cut budgets around here because we want to show there is damage to be done when that occurs. That is a very dangerous political point.

I yield.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I know he has great expertise on the topic of aviation and airports and airplanes.

Again, I am here to decry a system that is failing. And while it is personally troublesome to me--it bothers me--it is embarrassing not to be able to accomplish what seems so straightforward and simple. We all like to have victories, but it is not really about me. Every Member of the Senate ought to have the opportunity to present germane amendments and let the will of the Senate--let those 99 other people, as well as me, make a decision based upon the merits, however we all make decisions around here or whether we vote for or against something. This is not about my right as an individual Senator as much as it is about the rights of all of us on behalf of the American people, on behalf of our home State and constituencies, to be able to do our jobs.

If there is a political game afloat that is preventing this amendment from being considered, then I would suggest we have transversed that plane in which we no longer are caring for Americans but we are caring about our own political skills, our own political reelection as compared to what we are here to do.

This place is way too political. This is not a political amendment. It ought to be made in order. Yet, despite all the efforts, it has not occurred.

I hope, in the few minutes that remains, there is still a chance that my unanimous consent request will be agreed to. I appreciate that others were able--a handful of folks were able to offer their amendments. I think we ought to have more of that, not less. It is about the Senate doing its job; it is not just about Senator Moran not being able to accomplish his on this particular day.

I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

I yield for the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland, my chairwoman.

I spoke last night on an amendment I have continued to ask be made in order on this continuing resolution. As I indicated last night, we are going to spend in excess of $1 trillion in this bill, and I am hoping that my amendment, and perhaps others, could be made in order yet during this postcloture 30-hour period of time.

One of the concerns that has been raised is whether, if my amendment were adopted, this would create difficulties in the House of Representatives for the final passage of the continuing resolution. I am pleased to be on the floor, particularly with the chairwoman being here, the Senator from Maryland, to indicate that I now have indications from the Speaker's Office that they would have no objection to the amendment I continue to offer, that I hope will be made in order, that I hope a vote will be taken on related to the air traffic control towers.

Also in the period of time since I last spoke, we have numerous Members of the Senate who have now joined as cosponsors of this amendment. The number is now 14 Democrats and 12 Republicans. The number continues to grow. And I have had a number of conversations with particularly Democratic Members of the U.S. Senate who indicate to me: Why can't your amendment be made in order?

So I am hoping, as Members of the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference meet during this 12:30 lunch period, that perhaps there is still an opportunity for this issue to be resolved.

I would indicate once again that, while I listened to the suggestion of the majority leader this morning that we move to the budget during this 30-hour postcloture timeframe, in the absence of some agreement related to this amendment, I will object to moving to the budget until the 30 hours expire.

I also have indicated publicly that I will object to the next 30 hours--the next opportunity in which unanimous consent is requested as we get back to the base bill. It is not my nature to be an obstructionist. This is an amendment that matters greatly. It has been determined by the Parliamentarian to be germane and, in my view, ought to be made in order.

Just as the chairwoman talked about bipartisan efforts, this is one that clearly is bipartisan and apparently bicameral. So I am hoping to utilize the rights as a Member of the Senate to see that there still is an opportunity for this amendment to be considered. I would say that the reason this matters so much in this timeframe is that I am of the view, and I think it is shared by many, in the absence of this amendment being adopted and included in this continuing resolution, and the continuing resolution being passed, that the control towers will be eliminated on April 7, and there will be little if any opportunity for the Appropriations Committee then to restore funding to, in a sense, a program that no longer exists.

There are many of the topics I share with my colleagues here about the consequences of the sequester. I am willing to work with them to see that we move money from one place to another to solve that problem. In the absence of that happening, there is still an opportunity for the Appropriations Committee and ultimately the Congress in the appropriations process to solve those problems. But should April 7 come, the 179-plus contract towers are eliminated. Then it seems highly unlikely to me that any appropriations process would include money for a program that is no longer in existence.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Let me ask the majority leader if the two amendments listed in his unanimous consent, No. 98 and No. 82, are considered, then following that we would move to final action on the bill--on the substitute as potentially amended; is that accurate?

While I am not opposed, certainly, to the Pryor-Blunt amendment--I am a sponsor of that amendment--because that would then waive the 30 hours and move to final action, I object.

I have objected to the unanimous consent request, and in addition to my concern that while there are amendments that are fine with me if they are made pending and brought before the floor for a vote, I would object because we would move to final action; but I also would object because the amendment I have offered in regard to control towers is not included in the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, had the Senator from New Hampshire not objected to the previous request for unanimous consent, I would have objected. I want to use this moment just to point out that an amendment that is, in my view, so critical to the air safety of our country, the traveling public's ability to feel secure and safe in their travel, was not included in the request for unanimous consent. This is an amendment that would transfer money to allow the air traffic control tower program to continue.

While the majority leader has requested that there be magnanimity, that there be reasonableness, in my view, in the absence of this amendment being included, come April 7 those air traffic control towers are closed. And even I, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, will have no ability to reverse course once they are closed. So this program faces an immediate deadline.

Had the Senator from New Hampshire not objected previously to the unanimous consent request, I would have on that basis. I have no objection to the request that time be given to the chair and the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate.

The bill we are debating, the so-called continuing resolution, spends slightly more than $1 trillion between now and the end of the fiscal year. As those who were either on the floor or watching a few moments ago discovered, the opportunity to amend this bill in even a minor fashion, although, in my view, an important fashion, was denied.

So the Senate, in passing the CR, will spend more than $1 trillion, and we have had the opportunity to vote on two amendments, potentially three. That is the total extent to which 100 Senators representing millions of Americans have had the chance to influence the outcome, the content of a significant bill that spends lots of money.

The amendment I have been trying to offer, in my view, is an important one.

One of the things the administration announced following sequestration was that the control tower program, which provides about 179 air traffic control towers across the country, would be eliminated. That certainly is of importance to those who fly. It is important to people in our States, rural America. But this is not just a rural issue. These control towers are located in large cities across our country.

I have been trying to fathom why the Department of Transportation would, in a sense, single out this program. It is hard for me to fathom a good answer to that question.

As close as I can come is there are those in Washington, DC, who wish to demonstrate we can't cut a dime. We can't cut $85 billion from Federal spending, a $3.6 trillion spending program. We can't eliminate 28 days of spending at all. To prove that point, they apparently wish to single out programs which are the most important to Americans.

The idea we would put at risk an air traffic control tower program which is so important to the flying and traveling public is amazing to me. Again, it is not I think that the sequestration and the 5-percent cut in this program could not be handled by the Department of Transportation, but that is not what the Department of Transportation is doing.

In fact, the amendment which I hope to offer continues the sequestration and reduces the program spending by 5 percent. What the Department of Transportation is doing is eliminating the program, reducing the spending in this program by 75 percent.

Again, I can't figure out why this program of such importance would be treated in this fashion unless there are those who simply wish to demonstrate anytime we attempt to reduce spending--it is actually not even reducing spending; sequestration reduces the increase in spending. The only thing I can think of is there are people who wish to demonstrate here we cannot do that without having huge consequences to the safety and security of Americans. In my view, that concept certainly is false. We can find savings, but

beyond that it is a dangerous game to play in trying to prove a point we can't cut spending by putting at risk those who utilize air traffic control towers.

My frustration is increased by the fact we are spending all this money and the bill comes to the floor. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I ought to have the opportunity to deal with this bill in the committee on which I serve. This hasn't happened.

I think what is my next opportunity, since I didn't have one as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee? Maybe I ought to find colleagues from across the aisle, from around the country, rural, urban, Republican, Democrat, who would understand the value of this program. I did this and we found 23 sponsors of this amendment. We could probably find more. The point I wish to make this evening is 13 of those 23 are Democrat sponsors.

This place ought to function. We have been asked, why can't we work together? Why can't we find bipartisan ways to work together, 23 Senators, where 10 Republicans and 13 Democrats come together to say, yes, this needs to pass? Yet I have had no opportunity to offer that amendment. Numerous Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, but especially Democratic Senators, visit with me on the Senate floor saying, why can't you get this amendment made in order? It is a good amendment.

I don't have a good answer for that question.

We have worked hard with the chairperson and the ranking Republican on the committee. We have worked across the aisle and worked with the leadership, attempting to clarify how important this amendment is. Yet we will spend more than $1 trillion. However, one amendment, which transfers $50 million from two accounts, from unencumbered balances and from research funds, to keep the air traffic control program alive and well, is not in order.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, my hope was I could solve this problem in the normal appropriations process. We spoke about this tonight. The majority leader spoke about getting back to the regular order and working on appropriations bills. Presumably sometime this week--although as a result of this amendment not being made in order, it will be later in the week than expected--we will get to the budget. Presumably we will pass a budget and go through the appropriations process.

The problem is I, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and my colleagues who care about this program, who serve on this committee and who serve in the Senate, will have no opportunity to save this program. The Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation, is going to terminate this program on April 7. By the time we ever get to regular order, if and when we do, the program will be eliminated. We will have lost the only opportunity, which is now on this continuing resolution, to make certain this program remains in place.

If we do what we ought to do here, come together and find a solution, reach bipartisan agreement, we ought to have the opportunity to address $50 million out of a more than $1 trillion bill. The idea we would pass a $1 trillion appropriations bill, with only allowing two, maybe three amendments, is something which again suggests we do not have our order in the appropriate place.

This is certainly important to folks across the country, and it is something which deserves attention and deserves a vote. It is something the American public ought to insist we not play the game of whether we can cut anything and put their safety at risk.

My plea to my colleagues tonight, having voted to advance this bill and cloture has been granted, which means no amendments are in order, I would ask our colleagues to realize the importance of this amendment and potentially others. Other Members of the Senate wish to offer amendments to establish and prove our priorities and, as the majority leader, demonstrate we can govern. The majority leader spoke about proving to the American people we can govern by passing this bill. It seems to me governing is something more than passing a continuing resolution without the opportunity for Members of the Senate to make their imprint on behalf of their constituents, and in my case Kansans, on behalf of the American people.

The air transportation system is essential to local communities and it is vital to our economic engine. It matters across the country. This amendment, if I am allowed to offer it, would continue access to the system which has worked so well for so many communities across our country. My plea is between now and when the 30 hours runs on the postcloture debate of this bill, there are those in the Senate who will work with me and others to see the amendment process works and we return to the days in which a Senator has the ability to influence the outcome of important pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, I am here to speak to an amendment that I previously filed, amendment No. 41.

The purpose of this amendment is to help provide the White House with the opportunity to reopen its doors to the American people. It certainly has received a lot of attention, which demonstrates to me-- and I am sure to my colleagues--how important a visit to the White House is to so many Americans.

In my view, we can be much smarter, and we must be much smarter, with our spending decisions and make cuts in ways that do not intentionally or unnecessarily inflict hardship or aggravation upon the citizens of our country.

Canceling White House tours is one of those unnecessary and unfair ways for the Department of Homeland Security to meet its budget-cutting obligations--particularly if the necessary savings can be found someplace else within their budget.

The self-guided White House tours were canceled either by the Secret Service or the White House--I have not been able to get a clear answer to actually who made that decision. But, regardless, they were canceled in order to save a minimum of $2.14 million, according to the Secret Service.

This amendment proposes to transfer $2.5 million from TSA to the U.S. Secret Service to pay for the security staff necessary for the White House tours to continue for the remainder of fiscal year 2013.

Why go after TSA? In my view, TSA can absorb these costs. Just last week, TSA signed a contract--just last week TSA signed a contract--that would allow it to spend up to $50 million on uniform-related expenses over the course of the next 2 years. So last week, TSA spends $50 million for new uniforms, and now we have no money for tours at the White House.

Prior to signing that $50 million uniform contract, the TSA uniform allowance for security officers had already doubled last November as part of a new TSA collective bargaining agreement to an estimated $9.57 million annually. This works out to $443 per TSA employee per year. By comparison, officers in the U.S. Armed Forces receive either no uniform allowance or a one-time $400 allowance over the lifetime of their service.

There is no reason why American taxpayers should spend more on TSA uniforms every year than a U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant spends in a lifetime. And the same taxpayers who are

funding the TSA officers' uniforms are being denied the opportunity to tour the White House--the people's house.

This amendment has been scored by CBO, which found it would result in no net change in budget authority and would result in an estimated decrease in fiscal year 2013 outlays of $1 million. So it is an amendment that saves money.

These White House tour closings are actually falling on the burden of Members of Congress because it is our responsibility to organize the tours, get the permission, and we are the ones who are now telling our constituents that tours that were previously approved--we have to call and give them the bad news.

In fact, today I had a couple of Kansans and their three young boys on the Capitol steps for a photograph and conversation, and these constituents with their family from Kansas were indicating how sad it was to tell their boys, even though they were here in Washington, DC, they could not see the White House. In fact, they said: We played by the rules. We signed up. We went through the security. For months we were planning to come to Washington, DC, but now that we have arrived, the White House is something that is not available to us and our boys.

It is often that we are the ones now providing that news to families in Kansas and across the country. My office has received lots of e- mails from concerned constituents, including some whose tours are not even scheduled until next May or June, sometime in the summer, asking whether we believe the White House will be reopened to them by that time.

Between March 9 and March 21--just in that short period of time--we have already canceled 16 previously approved White House tours. Multiply that--assuming we are normal or average--by 100 Senate offices and 435 House Members, and that is a lot of Americans who had hoped or thought they were going to see the White House on their visit to our Nation's Capitol.

I read today that the White House has indicated they are going to try to find ways. I think the President said he is going to try to find ways to get young people, children, into the White House. I certainly express my desire to see that happen. But I was thinking, if we make that the case, then what happens to the Kansan who is the 91-year-old World War II veteran who is back here to see the World War II Memorial and while here wants to see the White House?

Again, the White House should be available to all Americans--in fact, people from around the globe--to see the home of our President.

Shaking up our entire tour scheduling process at a time in which the tourists are soon coming--or coming now with spring break and cherry blossoms--is something, in my view, we can avoid. This amendment would take money that we believe is less wisely spent and reopen the White House to the American people.

So I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment and would hope we can find a way, in working with the White House and working with the Secret Service, to make sure that noble building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is something that is available for Americans to see, to view, and to be inspired.

One of those kids, one of those folks who walks through that White House, someday might be the President of the United States. And we do not want to do anything that hinders the opportunity for that inspiration to occur and for Americans to continue to be proud in their Executive Officer--the President--and to be proud of the system of government we have. Let's not lose the inspiration. Let's not deny the American taxpayer, the American family the opportunity to see the White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky, and I would like to ask a series of questions.

First, let me outline a thought I had in listening to this conversation and ask the Senator a question about it.

We have seen the actions of our President to be determined unconstitutional in a recent case in the court of appeals in the District of Columbia--a case in which the President made the determination he could determine the definition of a recess in the Senate--and so we now have a court that has declared the President's conclusion in that regard to be unconstitutional.

I don't know that we want to get into the magnitude or evaluating what constitutional violations are most damaging to the American people or to our rights and liberties, but I would ask the Senator to compare the consequences of the President being wrong once again in regard to the constitutionality of utilizing a drone strike to end the life of an American citizen. Again, I am suggesting that we have seen precedent where the President acts unconstitutionally. Fortunately, the legal process is there to make certain a determination is made as to the constitutionality of that act.

In this case, what would be the consequences of a drone strike as compared to whether an appointment to an administrative body under the recess clause is constitutional?

Mr. President, to the Senator from Kentucky, what is the logical extension of a decision that it is constitutional to utilize a drone by our military to strike at the life of an American citizen in the United States?

And I would say, if the Senator would agree with me, most Americans would find it repulsive, unconstitutional, and a terrible violation of public duty if a military officer on the streets of Wichita, KS, pulled a gun and shot an American citizen.

Really, is that not the logical extension of the idea that a drone strike from above results in the death of a U.S. citizen without due process? Is that any different than the ability to kill somebody in any other manner that I think most Americans would recognize today as prohibited without due process of law by our Constitution?

Mr. President, I have an additional question, and I believe it is my final question.

I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, through the President--we are here at this point in time in the juncture of the Senate with the issue of whether to confirm a particular individual to a particular office, an administrative appointment. I would ask the Senator if he doesn't believe the issue of the due process rights of American citizens is of such a magnitude that the real issue that ought to be before the Senate is not the confirmation of an individual, but we ought to resolve the issue of whether the Senate believes it is constitutional for the due process rights of an American citizen to be taken by a drone strike in the United States, and the opportunity now presents itself that it would be a reason not to grant cloture.

Let me ask it as a question. Would it not be a reason to grant cloture on this nomination until we resolve this issue?

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for responding to my questions.

Mr. President, thank you.

Through the Chair, Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Kentucky a couple of questions.

I have been listening to the conversation, to the debate, to the discussion on the Senate floor throughout the afternoon, and I would ask the Senator from Kentucky these questions: Is it not true that the Constitution of the United States is a document designed to protect the freedoms and liberties of Americans?

I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, while sometimes perceived to be a grant of authority, is not really the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution to make sure the American people enjoy certain liberties and freedoms that the Founding Fathers who wrote that document believed were important for American citizens? And whether or not that is true, I will let the Senator from Kentucky tell me, but if that is the case, if it is constitutional to intentionally kill an American citizen in the United States without due process of law, then what is not constitutional under the U.S. Constitution?

If the conclusion is reached--as the administration, at least, is unwilling to say that is not the case--if the conclusion is reached that it is within the powers of the Constitution for the executive to allow for the killing of an American citizen in the United States, then what is left in our Constitution that would prohibit other behavior? If you can go this far, what liberties remain for Americans?

Well, I would, again, through the Presiding Officer, ask a question of the Senator from Kentucky.

Again, in the absence of the assurance or the statement from the administration--from the President of the United States or his Attorney General--I ask the Senator from Kentucky, is not this the appropriate venue for us to insist upon that answer? Is it not appropriate for this to be the venue on which we, as a U.S. Senate, make clear that it is unconstitutional, in our view, for the death of a U.S. citizen in the United States by military action?

This is the opportune moment because of the pending confirmation of the nomination of the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. So while today's order of business really is an administrative appointment, is this issue not so important that we need to utilize this moment, this time in the Senate to make certain that question is answered in a way that makes clear--not only for today and for the current occupant of the CIA and its administration, but for all future Americans, all future CIAs, all future military leaders--that it is clear that in the United States American citizens cannot be killed without due process of law?

Perhaps, Mr. President, finally, I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, while this opportunity to discuss this issue on the Senate floor has occurred today, it certainly is an opportunity for the American people to understand a significant basic constitutional right may be at stake. And while the Senator from Kentucky has led this discussion, I would ask him, has he now received, as a result of bringing this attention to this issue, any additional reassurances from the Attorney General or the President of the United States that the administration agrees that there is no constitutional right to end the life of an American citizen using a drone flying over the lands of the United States and attacking a U.S. citizen?

Again, Mr. President, if I can ask the Senator from Kentucky a question through the Presiding Officer, while there is a significantly important issue before the Senate today--and that is the confirmation of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency--I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, is not the more important issue, the less pedestrian issue, that we face on the Senate floor and in the United States of America one that has been with us throughout our history, one that was with us when the Constitution was written, and one that has been with us every day thereafter; that is, what is the meaning of the words contained in the U.S. Constitution, and what do they mean for everyday citizens, that they know that their own government is constrained by a document created now more than 200 years ago? Is that not the most important question that faces our country and its citizens on a daily, ongoing basis?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for responding to my questions.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.