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 and that 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 Institute for 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 that 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 that 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’s the realization that when we invest in research, in projects that ultimately cure a disease, that 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 to send us their best ideas in hopes of being supported is that their chance of being funded has dropped from about one in three which is where it has been for most of the last 50 years now to about one in six. 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 one in six 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 your path about whether this is a path they should choose.” Dr. Collins says, “This deeply worries me.”

At a time we need to encourage our children to pursue degrees in education, in science, in research, in 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 that are so devastating to so many families in our country, knowing that 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 that all of us are in favor of funding the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, at a magnitude, at a level which will again restore us to the forefront of medical research around the globe, will send a message to our students and future scientists that America is the place medical research should occur and where they should pursue their careers. Disease can be conquered and lives can be restored, and most importantly, there may be hope in the United States that 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.

Madame President, 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 was on the floor this morning and outlined the merits of an amendment I’ve tried to have pending to this continuing resolution. It’s amendment No. 55. It’s an amendment that deals with the air traffic Control Tower Program that the Obama administration has indicated that it will terminate this program 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.

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

Again, this is an important amendment that’s 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 to me and very 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 isn’t years ago, this wasn’t months ago this was just last week in which the leader said this, “There will be amendments offered.” And he’s talking about the Continuing Resolution. “There will be amendments offered. We are working on a process to consider those amendments. This week we’ll 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’re 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”

Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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. It’s not an amendment about Kansas. Certainly, I am talking about my home state. Nothing wrong with representing your home state which is affected by the loss of these control towers. But 43 States—almost all of us have control towers, and come April the 7th, they no longer will be.

It’s one of the reasons—and I’ve indicated this previously—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 the 7th. 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. But I never—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 my role as a member of the United States Senate—that I share with 99 other senators—and the idea that we would then come back and restart a program that has disappeared—it just isn’t 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 that the majority leader talks about. But this is an amendment I cannot imagine what I was supposed to have done. It is an amendment that is germane. It’s 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. They are 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 that the Senate cannot even take a vote on a germane amendment that is broadly supported? –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, 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, it’s not 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 two years. I served for a number of years in the House of Representatives. One of the things I thought was true and one of the reasons 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’re 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, Mr. President, for a Senator like me, I lay awake last night from, 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 be even 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’re Senators, we’re important and powerful people—it’s 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 an amendment to a bill on the United States Senate floor that is germane. 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 amendments that were germane, 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, Mr. President, 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’ve 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, and we immediately take it up. 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, would you listen to me, and say, does this make 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 here on the Senate why this amendment is something that is important.

I came to the Senate from the United States House in hopes that the Senate was different, in which 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 United States 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’s 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, D.C., 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 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, Mr. President 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 got 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 in which we are going to get back to regular order. I want to be a member of the Appropriations Committee that works, that 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’re 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 that there is damage to be done when that occurs. That is a very dangerous political point.