Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. 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?

Mr. MORAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I object.

Mr. MORAN. 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.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. 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.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. 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?

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

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN. 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?

Mr. MORAN. 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?

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

Mr. MORAN. 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?

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, as we all know, our country faces tremendous fiscal challenges. We expect our President, our leaders, and those of us in Congress to engage in a meaningful and honest discussion about debt, deficits, and the direction of our Nation. Unfortunately, I think what Americans--certainly Kansans--are hearing from the White House and from some prominent Democrats is a relentless focus on political gimmicks to solve our problems. An example of one of those is the so-called corporate jet loophole. We are focused on that instead of a serious plan to address the looming sequestration cuts that threaten to harm our economy. The President's fixation on corporate jets stands in direct contrast with his supposed desire to help the aviation industry and create jobs. Ending the accelerated depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft will send hundreds if not thousands of hard-working Kansans straight to the unemployment line. My State is blessed with a significant number of people who work in the aviation industry. This rhetoric is dangerous. It is certainly hypocritical. The 5-year depreciation schedule has been law for nearly a quarter of a century, and it was not created for the benefit of the ``rich'' or ``wealthy'' but was created for the benefit of the 1.2 million Americans who make a living building and servicing these airplanes. Accelerated depreciation helps spur manufacturing and creates jobs. I am disappointed that the President continues his endless campaign to score political points rather than to work toward a real solution to solve our Nation's fiscal challenges. When 23 million Americans are looking for work, our government's first priority should be to create an environment where business can grow and hire additional workers. Increasing taxes on corporate jets and other general aviation aircraft sales will only further stifle economic recovery and result in additional job losses. According to our Joint Committee on Taxation, closing the ``loophole,'' would only generate $3 billion in revenue over the next 10 years, less than the government borrows on a single day. Kansans in particular, along with the rest of rural America, would be negatively impacted by any change in the depreciation schedules for noncommercial aircraft. Farmers use general aviation aircraft to dust their crops, and rural small business owners rely on these planes to connect their businesses with the rest of the world. It makes no sense for a commercial jumbo jet liner to be depreciated on the same schedule as a farmer's air tractor. This distinction between general and commercial aircraft is neither a loophole nor unique, as the 5-year depreciation schedule is applicable to many other depreciable transportation assets, such as cars and trucks. If the President wants Congress to review the depreciation periods associated with certain assets, then why single out one specific industry instead of taking a comprehensive approach? Because attacking corporate jets is apparently a nice political sound bite. But political sound bites don't solve our problems. Because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on January 1 of this year, President Obama received $600 billion in tax hikes to help fund his vision for government expansion. Yet less than 2 months later he is back on the campaign stump asking American taxpayers for more. While the amount of revenue our government currently brings in is near historical averages, spending remains well above those historical norms and is projected to escalate dramatically in the years ahead. It is long past time to address the real problem with meaningful spending reductions, and every moment spent talking about corporate jet loopholes is a wasted moment. Americans expect leadership from their elected officials here in Washington, DC. If we fail to take action now and leave it for a future President and a future Congress to solve, we will reduce the opportunities of the next generation to experience the country we know and love, and we will diminish the chance that every American has the chance to pursue the American dream. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, another sad occasion in Kansas. A week ago this past Sunday, the Wichita community was struck by the tragic news that Randy and Suzy Storms were killed in a fatal car accident in east Wichita. Randy and Suzy were traveling home from visiting a friend at a local hospital when Randy experienced a health problem while driving, which led to a devastating accident. Randy and Suzy were very well known and very well loved in the Wichita community for more than 30 years. Their care and compassion for those in difficult circumstances shaped how they lived their lives. Randy had a special gift for connecting with those who were struggling, perhaps because he knew how difficult life could be. As a teenager, Randy suffered a spinal injury which forced him to live as a quadriplegic. Resolved to make his faith in Jesus the core of his identity and not his physical disability, Randy chose to invest his life in caring for others. Shortly after high school, Randy began to serve on the staff of Young Life, a Christian organization that mentors and works with young people. His position at Young Life was a springboard to reaching a wider Wichita community. Over the years, Randy became a counselor and friend to countless pastors, community leaders, young adults, and everyone else who was in need of a friend. Jen Shively, who served with Randy for 27 years, remembered that he ``loved people well,'' and that ``loving others was effortless for him.'' Nan Chastain met Randy while attending Young Life and she remembers Randy as ``the definition of faithfulness.'' She said, ``He was always there for anyone whenever they needed him.'' In short, Randy Storms valued every life. His wife Suzy was also known for her great love and her care for others. On any given day, you could find Suzy helping young women and teen mothers in need of encouragement and a listening ear. Sean Spencer, a long-time friend of the Storms, knew Suzy to be a person of great strength and grace. Together, the couple invested in the lives of many married couples, both young and old, who were facing the trials of life together. Randy and Suzy found joy in serving together and encouraging others. The Wichita community came to know the Storms as the folks who would show up to your kids' sporting events, high school graduations, and baptisms to celebrate what means the most in life--people. The Storms were also known as the folks who would faithfully show up at the darkest hour to lend a helping hand or to offer comfort to those facing serious difficulties. Randy and Suzy Storms lived out the biblical teaching to love your neighbor as yourself, and they touched the lives of countless Kansans. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to their two children Nick and Natalie and their two grandchildren Jack and Lucy. Randy and Suzy were two very special people who will be greatly missed by so very many. This tragedy is a somber reminder that every day is a gift and we are not promised a tomorrow. May we learn from the Storms that what truly matters in life is the people around us, and may their example spur us to love one another more deeply. I ask my colleagues as well as all Kansans to remember the Storms family in their thoughts and prayers in the days ahead.

Mr. MORAN

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