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 post cloture 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 post cloture 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.

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’s 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 target—want 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 p  ublic is amazing to me. Again, it is not I think that the sequestration and the five 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 five 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 that 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. That 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, 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’s 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, trying to make clear how important this amendment is. Yet we will spend more than $1 trillion.  And 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.

And again, 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 the 7th. 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 that 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, It’s 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 that between now and when the 30 hours runs on the post cloture 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.

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 two 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, D.C., 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, D.C., but now that we have arrived, the White House is something that is not available to us and to our boys.

It’s 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.