Mike Rounds

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 416 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROUNDS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2943, postcloture; finally, that all time during adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 459 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 476, submitted earlier today.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 552 only, with no other executive business in order.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nomination.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 477, submitted earlier today.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, or the NDAA. This bill was reported out of committee 2 weeks ago with 100 percent support from our friends across the aisle and nearly unanimous support from the majority party. I am thankful for the leadership of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed. I think they have done a marvelous job. These are two veterans who have served their country well before becoming Members of this body. As Members of this body, they have worked very hard to find consensus between Republicans and Democrats with regard to how we work to prepare an authorization bill for funding for our military. The reason I am here today is I think it is important to share my thoughts about the need to move forward with a discussion of the National Defense Authorization Act on the floor of the Senate in an appropriate timeframe. For those individuals who wonder how the Senate works, sometimes we find it frustrating because we would like to move on. And as my friend the Senator from Oregon just indicated, they would like to have votes. In this particular case, he was suggesting a vote on the Supreme Court, but on that one there are challenges and there are concerns on the part of Members of the majority party. But in the case of the National Defense Authorization Act, this is one which has been passed out of the Senate, passed by the House, and signed by the President for 54 years in a row. It is a bipartisan work effort. It is one in which we have agreement; we find consensus. It seems only appropriate that we try to move forward on this particular bill before Memorial Day, the day in which we honor those individuals who have given the ultimate sacrifice. Let me share with you what we understand has happened. I understand that when the majority leader had asked for a unanimous offer or an agreement that we take up this bill early--take it up and begin to debate it; not pass it, but debate it and accept amendments to this particular bill about how to appropriately direct our military for the coming year--the minority leader objected, which is his right, and said he would not allow us to move forward, even to debate the bill. In fact, we had to file what they call cloture or a closure of the time with a 30-hour period, which we are in right now, before we can even take up the bill. That seems inappropriate. At least to me, it seems that if we really wanted to show we honor those individuals--and we talk about the memory of those who lost their lives serving our country--the least we could do would be to move forward with this particular one in some sort of a united effort since there does not appear to be anything that is of a challenge in passing the bill. I think about Memorial Day because I lost an uncle. As a matter of fact, I am named for him. My name is Marion Michael. I go by Mike, but I was named for an uncle who died in World War II on the island of Okinawa in May of 1945. He never had a chance to vote, never had a chance to have a family. My family lost something. He lost his life, but we lost an uncle, a brother. This is the time period in which we remember what these folks--these soldiers, sailors, and warriors--have given to our country. It seems appropriate that this would have been a great time to make an example of our working together. That sense of sacrifice didn't stop in World War II; it continues on. I had the opportunity, the privilege, to work as Governor of South Dakota during the time in which we were sending young men and women off to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember one time in particular that was an example of the generations supporting our country. It happened to be with a mobilization ceremony in the little town of Redfield. When we send young men and women off in South Dakota, we have a mobilization ceremony that is attended by literally the entire town. In this case it was the 147th Field Artillery, 2nd Battalion. I was working as Governor at the time, and when we came into this town, we went to the high school gymnasium. You couldn't park win three blocks of that gymnasium because it was filled. When we walked inside, there were people everywhere. They were even sitting on the window sills because there were a little over 105 soldiers who were being deployed, and they were going to Iraq. I remember it specifically because as we finished the ceremonies for deployment in this packed crowd, we went down the line, and we started thanking each soldier for their service. I walked through the line saying: Thank you. We appreciate your service. Be careful. Come back safely. I looked at one of the soldiers and looked at his last name. He was gray haired, clearly he was a sergeant, and he was one of the leaders. I said: Thank you for your service. Do your job, but bring these guys home safely. He said: Yes, sir. The next man in line--I looked at his name, and it was the same name as the individual ahead of him. I looked at him and I said: Is that your dad? He said: No, sir, that is my uncle. My dad is behind me. Three generations, three separate members of the same family were serving in the 147th, three of them offering their own and their families' time to support our country. I don't know whether they were Republican or Democrat. All I know is that they were wearing the uniform of the United States of America. Sometimes, as we talk about what we do, we have to remind ourselves that when these young men and women deploy, they are not deploying as Republicans or Democrats. They really don't care about how we see the progression of the votes that we take here. What they look at is whether or not we are united as Americans. This would be a very appropriate time for the minority leader to perhaps consider giving back some of the time that he is holding for debate on this bill to begin. Let's begin the debate on this bill before we leave for Memorial Day. Let's begin the process of letting these families know that this is important to us, too, and that we understand the significance of Memorial Day. For that particular family I talked about in Redfield, this is especially important this year because that young man came back and carried the Cross of War with him. They lost him earlier this year. This year, Memorial Day means a little bit more. What I would ask today is that we send a message to all of the men and women who wear the uniform. Politics is gone. We will debate the bill, we will spend time on the bill, we will make it better, but we will not hold it hostage. We will do what they want us to do as Americans protecting our country and honoring the memory of those who have given everything in defense of our country. This is the time to vote--to vote for those who died before they ever had a chance to vote. This is a chance to share our strong belief that when it comes to the defense of our country, we are Americans first, Republicans and Democrats last. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to display this Terry Redlin painting during my speech.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Terry Redlin, a citizen of South Dakota who rose to fame in the 1970s as an artist known for his vivid and vibrant outdoor paintings. On Sunday, April 24, 2016, Terry passed away at the age of 78 in Watertown, where he was born and raised. Our entire State was deeply saddened to hear of his passing. Terry spent his life promoting South Dakota, and he shared his appreciation for our great State with the entire world through his paintings. He will be missed deeply, not only by his family and loved ones but by all who admired his work throughout his very distinguished career. Growing up, Terry liked to draw. He didn't think he would become an artist, though. As an avid outdoorsman, he wanted to be a forest ranger so there would be plenty of opportunities to hunt and fish when he wasn't working. Then, tragically, at the age of 15, his life was changed forever. He was badly hurt in a motorcycle accident, and his leg had to be amputated. Becoming a forest ranger was now impossible for Terry, but Terry didn't let that stop him from pursuing greatness. After graduating high school, Terry received a disability scholarship to help further his education. Using it, he earned a degree from the St. Paul School of Associated Arts and spent 25 successful years working in commercial art as a layout artist, graphic designer, illustrator, and art director. In his spare time, he enjoyed photography, particularly of the outdoors and wildlife. Then he started painting from his photographs and from his memories. In 1977, at the age of 40, Redlin's painting ``Winter Snows'' appeared on the cover of The Farmer magazine. He quickly rose to prominence as an exceptional artist and started painting full time. From 1990 to 1998, each year's poll of national art galleries by U.S. Art Magazine selected Terry Redlin as ``America's Most Popular Artist.'' Over the years, many people have tried to describe the effect Terry's paintings had on them. People connect with his paintings. They inspire us to remember personal memories of past times, places, and experiences. Your heart is tugged when you look at them. There is peacefulness and warmth. Terry used to call it romantic realism, but mere words simply cannot describe it. As you can see from this Redlin painting beside me entitled ``America, America,'' which I brought with me from my front office where it normally hangs, the beauty of his paintings is truly indescribable. His son convinced him to stop selling original paintings and just sell prints. Someday, he said, they would build a beautiful art gallery to display all of the originals. And they did. It could have been built in the Twin Cities, where he lived for a time, or a large metropolitan area, because Terry's paintings are loved everywhere. Terry chose his hometown of Watertown, SD, for the construction of the Redlin Art Center. It was a gift to his home State and hometown for that $1,500 scholarship he was given all those years ago, which created a wonderful life for him and his family. Three million visitors came to the Redlin Art Center in the first 3 years and many more millions since then. Terry would sometimes walk into the galleries unannounced and visit with guests who would then ask the front desk: Who is that nice guy? When told it was Terry, they were shocked and delighted. Once Terry was seen driving slowly through the parking lot. When asked what he was doing, he said he was looking at all the different license plates and what they were doing there. He said he was amazed that people would travel so far just to see his paintings. Terry was also generous to the subjects of many of his creations. His paintings and prints have been used by various wildlife and conservation groups to raise more than $40 million to benefit their causes. For those of us who were blessed with the opportunity to meet and know Terry Redlin, we always came away feeling like he was our friend-- so wonderful, so kind, and so humble. For those who know him through his paintings, his spirit shone brightly in all of his work. As we mourn his death and pray for his loved ones during this difficult time, may we find comfort knowing that the legacy which he leaves behind through his paintings will be enjoyed and appreciated for generations to come. He was a great painter but an even greater human being. Terry once said that he wanted to paint forever, that he had to paint. Terry said it was like breathing to him. Unfortunately, illness forced him into retirement in 2007, and on Sunday, April 24, 2016, the Lord brought Terry up to Heaven. Now he can breathe again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Erik Phelps, a Navy legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to begin to address the list of historic wrongs against Native American citizens brought by the early U.S. Government. The idea that these laws were ever considered is disturbing, but the fact that these laws remain on our books is, at best, an oversight. Currently, Native Americans who are U.S. citizens just like you and me are still legally subject to a series of obsolete, historically wrong statutes. These statutes are a sad reminder of the hostile aggression and overt racism that the Federal Government exhibited toward Native Americans as the government attempted to assimilate them into what was considered modern society. In 2016, laws still exist that would allow for the forced removal of their children, who can be sent to boarding schools, and they can be denied rations if they refuse. They can still be subject to forced labor on their reservations as a condition of their receipt of supplies. Moreover, they can be denied funding if found drunk on a reservation. These statutes actually remain on the books of the land and, in many cases, are more than a century old and continue the stigma of subjugation and paternalism from that time period. It is without question that they should be stricken. We cannot adequately repair history, but we can move forward. Because of this, today I am introducing the RESPECT Act or the Repealing Existing Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes Act. I wish to list some of the 12 existing laws that the RESPECT Act will repeal. In Chapter 25 of the United States Code, section 302, entitled ``Education of Indians, Indian Reform School; rules and regulations; consent of parents to placing youth in reform school,'' the Commissioner of Indian affairs was directed to place Indian youth in Indian reform schools without the consent of their parents. The issue of off-reservation Indian boarding schools, in particular, is a rightfully sensitive one for our Native Americans. Between 1879 and into the 20th century, at least 830,000 Indian children were taken to boarding schools to allegedly ``civilize them.'' Many parents were threatened with surrendering their children or their food rations. This law, in fact, is also still on the books. A requirement exists in section 283, entitled ``Regulations for withholding rations for nonattendance at schools,'' that the Secretary of the Interior could ``prevent the issuing of rations or the furnishing of subsistence to the head of any Indian family for or on account of any Indian child or children between the ages of eight and twenty-one years who shall not have attended school in the preceding year in accordance with such regulations.'' Yet there still exist other outdated laws relating to wartime status between Indians and the United States, such as those found in section 72 of the Code, entitled ``Abrogation of treaties.'' Here the President was authorized to declare all treaties with such tribes ``abrogated if in his opinion any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United States.'' In section 127, entitled ``Moneys or annuities of hostile Indians,'' moneys or annuities stipulated by any treaty with an Indian tribe could be stopped if the tribe ``has engaged in hostilities against the United States, or against its citizens peacefully or lawfully sojourning or traveling within its jurisdiction at the time of such hostilities.'' Likewise, in section 128, entitled ``Appropriations not paid to Indians at war with United States,'' none of the appropriations made for the Indian Service could ``be paid to any band of Indians or any portion of any band while at war with the United States or with the white citizens of any of the States or Territories.'' Moreover, in section 138, entitled ``Goods withheld from chiefs violating treaty stipulations,'' delivery of goods or merchandise could be denied to the chiefs of any tribe by authority of any treaty ``if such chiefs'' had ``violated the stipulations contained in such treaty.'' Finally, in section 129, entitled ``Moneys due Indians holding captives other than Indians withheld,'' the Secretary of the Interior was ``authorized to withhold, from any tribe of Indians who may hold any captives other than Indians, any moneys due them from the United States until said captives shall be surrendered to the lawful authorities of the United States.'' In section 130, entitled ``Withholding of moneys or goods on account of intoxicating liquors,'' racist identifications tying drunkenness by Indians to receipt of funds still exist, stipulating that no ``annuities, or moneys, or goods'' could ``be paid or distributed to Indians while they'' were--and, once again, I will quote--``under the influence of any description of intoxicating liquor, nor while there are good and sufficient reasons leading the officers or agents, whose duty it may be to make such payments or distribution, to believe that there is any species of intoxicating liquor within convenient reach.'' Mandatory work on reservations still exists in section 137, entitled ``Supplies distributed to able-bodied males on condition.'' Once again, I will quote from the text: ``For the purpose of inducing Indians to labor and become self-supporting, it is provided that, in distributing the supplies and annuities to the Indians for whom the same are appropriated, the agent distributing the same could require all able- bodied male Indians between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to perform service upon the reservation, for the benefit of themselves or of the tribe'' in return for supplies. Let me summarize what I said in the beginning. In the year 2016 in the United States, Native Americans--citizens like you and me--are still legally subject to outrageous, racist, and outdated laws that were wrong at their inception. There is no place in our legal code for such laws. In my home State of South Dakota, which is home to 9 tribes and roughly 75,000 enrolled members, we strive to work together to constantly improve relationships and to mend our history through reconciliation and mutual respect. It is not always easy, but with our futures tied together, with our children in mind, reconciliation is something we are committed to. History also proves that since the onset of the government's relationship with the tribes, it has been complicated and challenging over the years, sometimes downright dark and disrespectful, and to this day often has led to mistreatment by the Federal Government. As Governor of South Dakota, I proclaimed 2010 the Year of Unity in South Dakota. This was done in recognition of the need to continue building upon the legacy and work of those who came before us. The year 2010 also marked the 20th anniversary of the Year of Reconciliation in South Dakota, which was an effort by the late Governor George Mickelson as a way to bring all races together. The Year of Unity and the Year of Reconciliation were efforts to build upon a common purpose, acknowledge our differences, and yet find ways to work together. I suspect we could use a lot more of that in Washington, DC. While legislative bodies before us have taken steps to rectify our previous failures relative to Native Americans, sadly, these laws remain, and out of a sense of justice, I believe we should repeal them. Imagine a scenario where descendants of those from Norway, Britain, Italy, or any other country for that matter, were treated with the same patronizing air of superiority. Only Native Americans face this discrimination, and it is long overdue to repeal these noxious laws. I would take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and to put an end to this blatant discrimination against Native Americans. We can't change our history, but we can start to change the paternalistic mentality of the Federal Government toward the Native people.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to begin to address the list of historic wrongs against Native American citizens brought by the early U.S. Government. The idea that these laws were ever considered is disturbing, but the fact that these laws remain on our books is, at best, an oversight. Currently, Native Americans who are U.S. citizens just like you and me are still legally subject to a series of obsolete, historically wrong statutes. These statutes are a sad reminder of the hostile aggression and overt racism that the Federal Government exhibited toward Native Americans as the government attempted to assimilate them into what was considered modern society. In 2016, laws still exist that would allow for the forced removal of their children, who can be sent to boarding schools, and they can be denied rations if they refuse. They can still be subject to forced labor on their reservations as a condition of their receipt of supplies. Moreover, they can be denied funding if found drunk on a reservation. These statutes actually remain on the books of the land and, in many cases, are more than a century old and continue the stigma of subjugation and paternalism from that time period. It is without question that they should be stricken. We cannot adequately repair history, but we can move forward. Because of this, today I am introducing the RESPECT Act or the Repealing Existing Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes Act. I wish to list some of the 12 existing laws that the RESPECT Act will repeal. In Chapter 25 of the United States Code, section 302, entitled ``Education of Indians, Indian Reform School; rules and regulations; consent of parents to placing youth in reform school,'' the Commissioner of Indian affairs was directed to place Indian youth in Indian reform schools without the consent of their parents. The issue of off-reservation Indian boarding schools, in particular, is a rightfully sensitive one for our Native Americans. Between 1879 and into the 20th century, at least 830,000 Indian children were taken to boarding schools to allegedly ``civilize them.'' Many parents were threatened with surrendering their children or their food rations. This law, in fact, is also still on the books. A requirement exists in section 283, entitled ``Regulations for withholding rations for nonattendance at schools,'' that the Secretary of the Interior could ``prevent the issuing of rations or the furnishing of subsistence to the head of any Indian family for or on account of any Indian child or children between the ages of eight and twenty-one years who shall not have attended school in the preceding year in accordance with such regulations.'' Yet there still exist other outdated laws relating to wartime status between Indians and the United States, such as those found in section 72 of the Code, entitled ``Abrogation of treaties.'' Here the President was authorized to declare all treaties with such tribes ``abrogated if in his opinion any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United States.'' In section 127, entitled ``Moneys or annuities of hostile Indians,'' moneys or annuities stipulated by any treaty with an Indian tribe could be stopped if the tribe ``has engaged in hostilities against the United States, or against its citizens peacefully or lawfully sojourning or traveling within its jurisdiction at the time of such hostilities.'' Likewise, in section 128, entitled ``Appropriations not paid to Indians at war with United States,'' none of the appropriations made for the Indian Service could ``be paid to any band of Indians or any portion of any band while at war with the United States or with the white citizens of any of the States or Territories.'' Moreover, in section 138, entitled ``Goods withheld from chiefs violating treaty stipulations,'' delivery of goods or merchandise could be denied to the chiefs of any tribe by authority of any treaty ``if such chiefs'' had ``violated the stipulations contained in such treaty.'' Finally, in section 129, entitled ``Moneys due Indians holding captives other than Indians withheld,'' the Secretary of the Interior was ``authorized to withhold, from any tribe of Indians who may hold any captives other than Indians, any moneys due them from the United States until said captives shall be surrendered to the lawful authorities of the United States.'' In section 130, entitled ``Withholding of moneys or goods on account of intoxicating liquors,'' racist identifications tying drunkenness by Indians to receipt of funds still exist, stipulating that no ``annuities, or moneys, or goods'' could ``be paid or distributed to Indians while they'' were--and, once again, I will quote--``under the influence of any description of intoxicating liquor, nor while there are good and sufficient reasons leading the officers or agents, whose duty it may be to make such payments or distribution, to believe that there is any species of intoxicating liquor within convenient reach.'' Mandatory work on reservations still exists in section 137, entitled ``Supplies distributed to able-bodied males on condition.'' Once again, I will quote from the text: ``For the purpose of inducing Indians to labor and become self-supporting, it is provided that, in distributing the supplies and annuities to the Indians for whom the same are appropriated, the agent distributing the same could require all able- bodied male Indians between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to perform service upon the reservation, for the benefit of themselves or of the tribe'' in return for supplies. Let me summarize what I said in the beginning. In the year 2016 in the United States, Native Americans--citizens like you and me--are still legally subject to outrageous, racist, and outdated laws that were wrong at their inception. There is no place in our legal code for such laws. In my home State of South Dakota, which is home to 9 tribes and roughly 75,000 enrolled members, we strive to work together to constantly improve relationships and to mend our history through reconciliation and mutual respect. It is not always easy, but with our futures tied together, with our children in mind, reconciliation is something we are committed to. History also proves that since the onset of the government's relationship with the tribes, it has been complicated and challenging over the years, sometimes downright dark and disrespectful, and to this day often has led to mistreatment by the Federal Government. As Governor of South Dakota, I proclaimed 2010 the Year of Unity in South Dakota. This was done in recognition of the need to continue building upon the legacy and work of those who came before us. The year 2010 also marked the 20th anniversary of the Year of Reconciliation in South Dakota, which was an effort by the late Governor George Mickelson as a way to bring all races together. The Year of Unity and the Year of Reconciliation were efforts to build upon a common purpose, acknowledge our differences, and yet find ways to work together. I suspect we could use a lot more of that in Washington, DC. While legislative bodies before us have taken steps to rectify our previous failures relative to Native Americans, sadly, these laws remain, and out of a sense of justice, I believe we should repeal them. Imagine a scenario where descendants of those from Norway, Britain, Italy, or any other country for that matter, were treated with the same patronizing air of superiority. Only Native Americans face this discrimination, and it is long overdue to repeal these noxious laws. I would take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and to put an end to this blatant discrimination against Native Americans. We can't change our history, but we can start to change the paternalistic mentality of the Federal Government toward the Native people.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Josh Jorgensen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Josh is a graduate of O'Gorman Catholic High School in Sioux Falls, SD. In May he will graduate from the University of South Dakota with his degrees in political science and media and journalism. Josh is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Josh for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Jordan Hanson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Jordan is a graduate of Watertown High School in Watertown, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is studying political science and strategic communications. Jordan is a hard worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jordan for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court in light of President Obama's announcement that he has nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who was one of our Nation's strongest defenders of our Constitution, will be difficult. For almost 30 years, with his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he fiercely fought against judicial activism from the bench. He will be greatly missed by not only his family and loved ones but by all Americans who shared his core conservative values and beliefs. Under the Constitution, the President shall nominate a replacement, as he did today, and the Senate has a constitutional role of advice and consent. This is a constitutional responsibility that I take very seriously. The decisions the Supreme Court makes often have long-lasting ramifications that--with one-vote margins--can dramatically alter the course of our country. At a time when the current administration has stretched the limits of the law and attempted to circumvent Congress and the Federal court system, choosing the right candidate with the aptitude for this lifetime appointment is as important as ever. I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme Court Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia's strict interpretation of the Constitution and deference to States' rights set a gold standard by which his replacement should be measured. As we all know, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressing their firm belief that the people of the United States deserve to have a voice in determining the next Supreme Court Justice. In their letter, they wrote: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant--or withhold--consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. As a result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings related to this issue until after a new President has taken office. This decision will allow the American people to have a voice in the next Supreme Court Justice based upon who they elect as the President this November. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the American people did have a voice when they elected President Obama in 2012, but that election was nearly 3\1/2\ years ago. Since that time, a lot has changed in our country, signaling a shift in America's views of our President and his philosophy of government. We don't need to look any further than the 2014 elections for proof. In the 2014 elections, the Senate switched from Democratic-controlled to Republican- controlled. In fact, I am one of those Republican Senators who replaced a Democrat in the last election. Many of us who ran were not supporting the President's policies. In fact, we ran because we wanted to change the direction the President was moving our country. At the State level, in 2012, the last time President Obama was elected, there were 29 Republican Governors and 20 Democratic Governors. In 2014, the number of Republican Governors rose from 29 to 31, while the number of Democratic Governors decreased from 20 to 18. We saw similar results in State legislative races across the country. In 2012, Republicans held a majority in both chambers of 26 State legislatures. In 2014, that number rose to 30. And if we take into account the conservative-leaning but officially nonpartisan legislature of Nebraska, that number jumps even higher--to 31. In 2012, Democrats held the majority of both chambers in 15 States. In 2014, that number was reduced to 11. So in the years since the President's last election, Republicans not only held a strong majority in the House of Representatives, but they took back control of the Senate and increased their numbers at the State level as well. There is no doubt that there has been a clear shift in the minds of the American people since President Obama's last election. I believe, just as many of my colleagues do, that the Republican victories of 2014 should be taken into consideration and, therefore, we should wait to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice until after a new President takes office. Overwhelmingly, South Dakotans who have contacted my office agree with this decision. One gentleman from Lemmon, SD, wrote to me saying: ``Our country hangs in the balance as to what the future of this great country will look like. . . . This decision is too crucial and the next Supreme Court nominee should be nominated by the next President of the United States.'' Another South Dakotan from Brandon noted: ``This is a rare opportunity for the American voter to actually have a voice in how the Court will be structured for many years to come. Please help preserve that opportunity for us all.'' In another example, a woman from Estelline wrote saying: ``Hearing of the passing of Justice Scalia was heartbreaking news. I ask that you do your part to allow the people to have a say in who the next Justice of the Supreme Court will be.'' These are just a few examples of the numerous South Dakotans who have contacted my office who agree that the American people have a voice in the direction our country will take in the decades to come. As much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see the Senate confirm a nominee from our current President, the reality is that when the tables are turned, they agree with our position. In fact, it was Vice President Joe Biden who, when he served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on this very floor in 1992: ``It is my view that if a President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses for an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'' It was minority leader Harry Reid who said in 2005: ``The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.'' And the Senate Democrats' next leader, Senator Schumer, said in 2007, close to 2 years before President Bush's term ended: ``We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.'' Whoever is confirmed to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court will be serving a lifetime appointment. Keeping in mind the current political makeup of the Court, the man or woman who will replace Justice Scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the Court for a generation to come. It is critically important that the next Justice be committed to upholding the principles of the Constitution. We owe it to Justice Scalia, our judicial system, and the Constitution to uphold the highest standards when determining our next Supreme Court Justice. We also owe it to the American people to make certain that their voice is heard in this election. For these reasons, I agree with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate leadership that we should not hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee until after our new President takes office. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.