Mike Rounds

Mr. ROUNDS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Mr. Trump's nominee to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. His background with the EPA regulatory process makes him well suited to lead this Agency. He has an in-depth understanding of the impact regulations have on landowners, American businesses and State and local governments. As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has been a leader in standing up for the rights of State governments in the face of an aggressive EPA that has imposed increasingly costly and burdensome regulations on the States. During his time as the attorney general, Mr. Pruitt established Oklahoma's first Federalism Unit in the Office of Solicitor General to more effectively combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by Federal agencies. General Pruitt is a strong believer in federalism and States' rights, which have been often overlooked by the previous administration, often to the detriment of the U.S. economy and our environment. I am hopeful Attorney General Pruitt will take steps to improve the Federal regulatory process to make certain Federal regulations are promulgated with adequate public participation, underpinned by the best scientific evidence available and in a transparent and open manner. Attorney General Pruitt understands the importance of taking stakeholder, State, and local government comments and expertise into account when promulgating regulations. He understands that listening to and considering the differing viewpoints of stakeholders will improve the regulatory process and lead to better regulations. This will lead to fewer burdensome and costly regulations for South Dakota farmers, ranchers, and landowners, while at the same time making certain we have clean air and clean water. The Obama EPA's process for considering scientific information was flawed and unbalanced. There was a lack of balanced opinion, geographic diversity in State, local, and tribal representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board, which is tasked with providing scientific advice to the EPA. Attorney General Pruitt understands the importance of relying on the most up-to-date science to underpin environmental regulations. During his confirmation hearing, he affirmed to me that he would uphold his obligations to use the most current, accurate data and sound science when making decisions, especially when it comes to the renewable fuel standard. The RFS has been successful in South Dakota in encouraging investments and creating jobs in corn ethanol production. Mr. Pruitt understands the importance of corn ethanol to the Midwest. Throughout his tenure as attorney general, Attorney General Pruitt witnessed firsthand the negative impact that EPA regulations, such as the waters of the United States rule, have on U.S. landowners and on our business owners. He saw how incomplete economic analysis did not account for the full impact of regulations on U.S. citizens, and the regulatory burden was often far greater than what the EPA claimed it would be. The attorney general can modernize the EPA's approach to regulation and make certain that regulations are promulgated in a deliberate, fair, and transparent process. A better regulatory process will lead to better regulations. Better regulations will make certain our air, water, and land is protected, our economy continues to grow, and American jobs can continue to be created. Attorney General Pruitt has had a rigorous vetting process since first being nominated by President Trump. He has answered more than 1,200 questions from Senators, more than 1,000 more questions than nominees for the EPA Administrator from the incoming Obama administration to the Bush administration or the Clinton administration. Additionally, his confirmation hearing was the longest for any EPA Administrator. I, personally, would like to thank Chairman Barrasso for spearheading this fair and very transparent confirmation process. I would also like to thank Attorney General Pruitt for taking the time to answer all of the questions that were asked of him and meeting with Senators both on and off the EPW Committee. General Pruitt's impressive background and depth of knowledge on EPA issues make him well suited to be the next EPA Administrator. As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and chairman of the subcommittee which has oversight of the EPA, I look forward to his eventual confirmation and to working with him in the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and legacy of Clint Roberts, who passed away in the early morning hours of February 13 at the age of 82. Clint is a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, the South Dakota State Senate, and a former South Dakota secretary of agriculture. He helped give birth to the Conservation Reserve and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which have been extremely beneficial to farmers, ranchers, and landowners, not only in South Dakota but across the country. These programs helped increase farm and ranch family incomes at a time of great economic turmoil. But more importantly, Clint was a mentor and a hero to me and to many others and, I am proud to say, a lifelong friend to me and Jean. I have always looked up to Clint and sought him out for advice. I first met Clint when I was an intern in the South Dakota State Senate in 1976. He was serving in a leadership position. He taught me many valuable lessons over the years about politics, policy, family, and public service, just to name a few. He also is credited with introducing me to that exquisite combination of water and Scotch over 40 years ago at the Kings Inn in Pierre. Clint grew up on a ranch near Presho, SD, in Lyman County, and never let go of his cowboy roots, his hat, or his boots. He was an iconic symbol of a cowboy and of the Wild West, so much so that he was one of the finalists to be the ``Marlboro Man'' in the mid-1970s. He also appeared in minor roles in films and even in a Super Bowl commercial. But even off camera, he was a cowboy through and through. He was down to earth, a straight shooter, and a practical conservative who believed in freedom and helping those in need. He was also a problem-solver who fixed what was wrong instead of just talking about it. He was one of the true conservationists in South Dakota, promoting wildlife and conservation on his operating farm and ranch. He taught many the importance of the CRP, or the Conservation Reserve Program, and preserving our natural resources. During pheasant hunting season, he always opened his ranch to hunters, and loved making his secret recipe for chili for all to enjoy. But most of all, he understood the importance of family. He was a great husband to Bev, a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, and he was a great friend to all who knew him. He had a tremendously positive impact on the many thousands of people whom he met and touched with his kindness, selflessness, and generosity. South Dakota is truly a better State, and we are a better people because of his hard work and dedication to making things better. With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the life of this public servant and my friend, Clint Roberts. We will treasure his legacy for years to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The committee will hold a subcommittee hearing on ``Moving America: Stakeholder Perspectives on Our Multimodal Transportation System.'' committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight: Modernization of the Endangered Species Act.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Ending Modern Slavery: Building on Success.'' committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 2:45 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing titled ``High Risk: Government Operations Susceptible to Waste, Fraud, and Mismanagement.'' special committee on aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stopping Senior Scams: Developments in Financial Fraud Affecting Seniors''. The committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2:30 p.m. subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 10 a.m.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the upcoming confirmation on Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama to be Attorney General of the United States. For the past 3 years, I have had the great pleasure of working with Senator Sessions in this body. We served together on both the Senate Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees. Within those committees, as well as on other issues that have come before the Senate during that same time period, I have found that Senator Sessions is extremely forthright, hard-working, and Senator Sessions is honest. He has served Alabamans and all Americans well during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate. In addition to serving on the Armed Services and EPW Committees, he also serves on the Senate Judiciary and Budget Committees, all of which address vital aspects of our Federal system. Senator Sessions also had a distinguished career before he was elected the U.S. Senator from Alabama. After graduating from the University of Alabama with a law degree, Senator Sessions practiced law in Russellville and Mobile, AL. In 1975, he took the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as an assistant U.S. attorney--the first step in a long and honorable career as a prosecutor. In 1981, Senator Sessions was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. He served honorably in that role for 12 years. Senator Sessions was then elected Alabama attorney general and served in that role until his election to the U.S. Senate. It is clear to me that Senator Sessions is exceptionally and perhaps uniquely qualified to serve as the Attorney General for the United States. He served as a line prosecutor and, as U.S. attorney and Alabama attorney general, as the chief Federal and State law enforcement authority. He has personally handled or managed a wide variety of cases--criminal and civil, trial and appellate. Senator Sessions also has extensive experience in the Federal system and, as a former State attorney general, a deep respect for State and local law enforcement and the role of States in our Federal system. There is an attribute even more important than experience, in my opinion, and that is integrity. Over the course of his career, Senator Sessions has demonstrated a deep respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, and ultimately, I believe that is what is most important in an Attorney General of the United States. In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this about the role of a U.S. attorney, and I think it applies similarly to the Attorney General: A federal prosecutor ``is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice be done.'' The Supreme Court continued: [A]s such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. I support Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States not only because his experience makes him qualified to serve but more importantly because his character makes him qualified to serve. Senator Sessions will, in the words of the Supreme Court, be a certain ``servant of the law'' and will make certain that justice is done for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch. As you know, the vacancy exists because last year Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly at the age of 79, leaving an unexpected vacancy on our Nation's highest Court. As I said at the time of his passing, replacing Justice Scalia, one of the Court's strongest defenders of our Constitution, would be extremely difficult. For nearly three decades, with his brilliant legal mind and animated character, Justice Scalia fiercely fought against judicial activism and legislating from the bench. To say our next Justice has big shoes to fill would be an incredible understatement. That is why the decision was made early on by Leader McConnell and others to give the American people a voice in this process, by waiting to confirm the next Justice until the 45th President was in office and able to nominate someone him or herself. We held that belief, even when it looked like our party would not win the Presidency. As we have been reminded before, elections have consequences. The American people chose to elect President Trump, who throughout his campaign said that he would nominate someone in the mold of the late Justice Scalia. With his pick of Judge Gorsuch, President Trump made an excellent choice in fulfilling that promise. We believe Judge Gorsuch espouses the same approach to constitutional interpretation as Justice Scalia and has a strong understanding of federalism upon which our country is built. Because the current makeup of the Court is evenly split between conservative- and liberal-leaning Justices, this ninth spot is as important as it has ever been. The next Justice has the potential to hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the Court for a generation to come. The Supreme Court is the final authority for interpreting Federal laws and the Constitution. It is one of the most important responsibilities found within our federalism. Since our very first Supreme Court--Justice James Wilson took the oath of office in October of 1789--there have been just 112 Justices to serve on the Court. These lifetime appointments are established under article III in the Constitution and are the ultimate authority over all of the Federal courts and State court cases involving Federal law. Since it was established, the decisions the Supreme Court has made have guided and altered the course of our Nation. The decisions it makes often have long-lasting ramifications, that in one vote can dramatically alter the course of our country. Based on what I know of Judge Gorsuch, I believe he has the aptitude for this lifetime appointment. He is greatly respected on both sides of the aisle. In fact, he was previously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously, and not a single Republican or Democratic Member of the Senate dissented. As such, we expect the Senate will continue its tradition of approving highly competent, qualified individuals to the Supreme Court in an up-or-down vote, following a thorough vetting process. I thank President Trump for nominating to the Supreme Court a judge who has lived up to the Scalia gold standard. I also thank the American people who voted in November in support of our efforts to retain Scalia's legacy on the Court when his replacement is confirmed. Perhaps most importantly, I thank Judge Gorsuch for his lifelong commitment to defending our Constitution and applying the law as it was written. If confirmed, I am confident he will be an outstanding member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize LCDR Erik Phelps, a defense fellow from the U.S. Navy, for his exemplary work in my office and service to our Nation during January to December 2016. Lieutenant Commander Phelps is a California native and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. Erik is married to his loving wife, Erin, and they have three young children named Owen, Summer, and Samantha. Upon joining my office, Erik quickly became a key asset and trusted adviser on defense and veterans policy. In fact, Erik's intellectual drive, attention to detail, and thoughtful planning led to his conceiving five original, outstanding pieces of legislation. These included the Veterans Choice Equal Cost for Care Act, the Veterans Health Administration Spending Transparency and Oversight Act, and the Protection and Advocacy for Veterans Act. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Erik for his outstanding contributions to my office and wish him all the best as he continues his career.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, my friend the Senator from Delaware has spoken very eloquently about the need to say thank you to our Members who work within TSA. I wish to speak in terms of members of the Armed Forces and to remind the people of America that we are free and we will be able to enjoy a very precious holiday season coming up because the men and women who wear that uniform are on the frontlines. It is their families who are making that sacrifice as they are away from home. We should keep all of them in our prayers and remember to say thank you to their families for the sacrifices they have made. Thank you to the men and women on the frontlines who keep us safe. With that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that we came together once again to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, a vital piece of legislation. It is a testament to the leadership of the chairmen and ranking members in the House and Senate that Members on both sides of the aisle have continued to work together to pass the NDAA again this year, and I thank them for their leadership. It is important to continue this 55-year-plus tradition of passing the NDAA to show our troops and their families that they have our full support. As in years past, this year's NDAA includes policies to support our wounded warriors, our troops, and their families. It also provides our military with the tools needed to combat our enemies around the globe. However, it is also the most significant defense reform legislation in decades. An example is its significant provisions to reform how the Department of Defense acquires new weapons. Given that the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the defense of our Nation to keep Americans safe, it is reassuring that Congress has continued to pass the NDAA every year for over half a century. To many Americans and even Members of Congress, the most visible manifestation of our NDAA is our combat vehicles, ships, and combat aircraft that have, with our outstanding servicemembers, made our Armed Forces second to none. Less visible are things such as training, maintenance, and adequate munitions, without which success on the battlefield would be in doubt. I am pleased that this year's NDAA adequately authorizes funds for the DOD's operations and maintenance account, which provides the dollars for these vital but less visible functions. The NDAA also stops the Department of Defense's proposed drawdown of an additional 15,000 soldiers, 2,000 marines, and approximately 4,000 airmen for fiscal year 2017. Additionally, it addresses munitions shortfalls and provides funds for depot maintenance and facilities sustainment. Importantly, it does not require women to register for the Selective Service and does not contain TRICARE prescription drug co-pay increases, both of which have been of concern to me and many other South Dakotans. I am pleased it includes a number of provisions which I offered to address the serious cyber threat our Nation faces. One of those requires the President to define when an act in cyber space requires a military response. Another requires training for DOD hiring officials on how to use the special authorities Congress gave them to expedite the hiring of cyber security professionals and pay these civilian employees more than what is normally authorized for civil service. I am also pleased that the conference report includes my mental health measure requiring the Department of Defense to more carefully monitor prescriptions dispensed at military treatment facilities for the treatment of PTSD. I join my colleagues in urging the President to continue the decades- long tradition of signing the NDAA into law. While we champion this year's bill, the most significant defense reform legislation in decades, we must extend our view beyond fiscal year 2017. For the past 2 years, I have served as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, bearing witness to potential challenges that could threaten our national security if we do not address them now, including arbitrary budget caps. These arbitrary budget caps have forced the kinds of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our Armed Forces. In particular, we must avoid the false choice of paying for readiness while assuming risk for modernization or vice versa. The American people expect us to adequately defend America next year and for every year to come. Job one in that regard is to remove the arbitrary budget caps and the threat of sequestration. Only by doing so can Congress fulfill its No. 1 responsibility--keeping Americans safe. In closing, I thank Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, my Armed Services Committee colleagues, and all of our staffs for the great legislation we had the honor to vote for today. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the need for regulatory reform and also on the work that we have been doing and are doing in the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, of which I have had the great privilege to chair in the 114th Congress. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize our ranking member from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, for his contributions to our oversight efforts. As chairman, one of our main goals has been to conduct a thorough and systemic review of the regulatory process, focusing on the impacts of these regulations on citizens, businesses, and--most importantly-- solutions to these problems. We have sought to make certain that Federal regulations are promulgated in a transparent, open process with adequate public participation. Our subcommittee has held hearings conducting oversight on various aspects of the rulemaking process. This includes the adequacy of the science the agencies rely on when promulgating regulations, the increasing number of unfunded mandates agencies impose on State and local governments, the impact of lawsuits on the rulemaking process, and the impact these regulations have on small businesses, State and local governments, and landowners. Since I began working in the Senate nearly 2 years ago, it has become increasingly clear that economic growth, American innovation, and job creation are being smothered by heavy-handed Federal regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats who think they know what is best for American families, States, local governments, and businesses. According to the American Action Forum, since 2009 this administration has finalized 2,973 regulations at a cost of $862.7 billion dollars as of today, December 7. Of these, 179 regulations have come from the Environmental Protection Agency, costing American taxpayers $342.5 billion. Since writing this speech--or beginning to write it, about 1 week ago--10 more regulations have been finalized, with 5 of those coming from the EPA. EPA regulations alone make up nearly half of the cost of all the regulations finalized in the last 7 years. As chairman of the EPW Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, it has become clear to me that EPA is one of the most egregious government agencies in imposing burdensome Federal regulations on citizens, States, and businesses. We have found a failure to review the most current and important science the Agency supposedly bases its regulations on. We have found that the sue-and-settle process utilized by special interest groups leads to a rushed and reckless rulemaking process that does not follow the proper regulatory process or allow for adequate public participation from those these rules will impact the most. Further, the EPA regularly fails to take into account how their regulations will impact States and shows little regard for how the States will use their limited resources to comply with these regulations, thereby issuing rules that impose Federal unfunded mandates on States and local and tribal governments. From 2009 to 2015, the EPA issued a total of 19 rules that contained costly, unfunded mandates on State governments. The Office of Management and Budget's 2015 report to Congress estimated that Federal regulations and unfunded mandates cost States, cities, and the general public between $57 billion and $85 billion every single year. State and local governments are then required to enforce these misguided regulations that have been promulgated by Washington bureaucrats who lack any understanding of the real-world consequences of their regulations or the unique characteristics of the various States. Alarmingly, we have also found that the EPA regularly fails to conduct a thorough and accurate economic analysis, which should provide an accurate representation of the cost their regulations will impose on taxpayers and businesses. This leads to grossly inaccurate economic analysis of regulations that affect huge swathes of the U.S. economy and thousands of U.S. businesses and American jobs. A 2014 report from the Government Accountability Office found that on multiple occasions and with major costly regulations, the EPA did not provide the public with an explanation of the economic information behind its decisionmaking, despite its obligations to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued the Michigan v. EPA decision, finding that the EPA unreasonably failed to consider costs when deciding to regulate mercury emissions from powerplants. This impacts the ability of our businesses to conduct business on a daily basis, to compete in a competitive global marketplace, and to employ Americans in steady, well-paying jobs. Notably, small businesses make up 99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms. Federal agencies are required by law to examine the impact of their regulations and what it will have on small businesses. Throughout our oversight process, we found that the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy submitted comments to the EPA expressing concerns over a number of recent rulemakings, such as the waters of the United States rule and the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations. However, the EPA moved forward with these regulations with little to no regard for their impact on U.S. small businesses. They are the backbone of the U.S. economy. As a result, rather than creating jobs and focusing on growing their business, U.S. small businesses are forced to use limited resources to comply with a myriad of costly and burdensome regulations. This year alone, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals imposed a nationwide injunction on the waters of the United States rule, and the Supreme Court imposed a nationwide stay on the Clean Power Plan. While I applaud these decisions, we should not be forced to rely on the courts to prevent such regulations from taking effect. I am also deeply troubled by the reports that the EPA and the Army Corps are illegally continuing to implement the Waters of the United States rule despite the court's nationwide stay. During our subcommittee field hearings in Rapid City, SD, earlier this year, we heard from several witnesses about the difficulty and confusion landowners are facing with regard to the waters of the United States. I am concerned that, if this continues, it may get to the point where the property that is the subject of these burdensome regulations loses its value. Make no mistake. I understand that rules and regulations have a place in society. We all want clean air, clean water, and safe chemicals, but there is a better way to achieve this without imposing burdensome regulations. These flaws in the EPA's rulemaking process have prevented agencies from making well-informed decisions. Even more troubling, the public, State and local governments, and American businesses are prevented from understanding the need, basis for, and the real impact of regulations. This regulatory quagmire did not happen overnight. It comes from decades of increased Federal bureaucracy, out-of-control spending, and Federal agencies not being held accountable for their actions. Similarly, we will not come to a solution overnight. It will take a serious bipartisan effort to move the ball forward to address this problem. Throughout this Congress, the goal of our subcommittee has been to unify and lead an effort to advance meaningful regulatory reform in Congress. We must make certain the regulatory process reflects transparency and sound science and is based on a realistic economic foundation and meaningful public participation that considers the multitude of facets of the U.S. economy. With an ally in the White House next year who has committed to reducing burdensome regulations, I plan to continue this effort throughout the next Congress and beyond. The success of the U.S. economy and the creation of American jobs depends on Congress making a concerted effort to take back their authority and rein in the rulemaking process. I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS. I thank the Senator for the question. The answer is, yes, we have spent a lot of time not only because it is critically a very important item to address--because in the United States today we spend over $1.9 trillion a year responding to the Federal regulatory morass that we have. That is one-half of a trillion dollars more than what we pay in personal income taxes on April 15. For people who are producers and have to respond not only in terms of the cost of the regulations but in terms of requesting from a Federal agency the ability simply to mow the ditches, seems to me to be overreach that most people with common sense and the rest of America simply don't think is necessary.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate the facts that the Senator is bringing out here. This is something that cannot be done overnight; it has to be done in a businesslike manner. The real challenge is to listen to the individuals who are impacted and to make reasonable regulations because we all want to make sure we have a clean America but also an America that can get back to business again employing people, putting them back to work. Then we can begin building the economy so we can afford to actually provide for the next generation so they don't have the problems we see right now with family income down over 6 percent in just the last 9 years. So this is a part of it. It is a significant part not just in the cost but in the impact on our economy as well. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleagues who are here today, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Connecticut, for the hard work they are doing to create new legislation that will improve the health care of Americans in the future, but I come today as well to speak about legislation which has already passed that was designed to improve the health care of veterans across the entire United States. I come to speak in favor and in support of the Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2009, which recently has come under attack by the VA and legislation introduced on this floor. In 2009, the 111th Congress passed the Emergency Care Fairness Act to fix a very big loophole in the law which hurt our Nation's veterans. Prior to 2009, the VA was not authorized to cover any costs of emergency room care at non-VA facilities for veterans who were covered by any type of third-party insurance. That meant that if a veteran had a limited insurance policy that covered even $1 of an emergency room bill, the VA would not pay a dime to cover costs that were not paid for by their insurance. Meanwhile, if a veteran had no insurance and was rushed to the emergency room, the VA was authorized to cover all of his or her costs. Clearly, this made no sense. Under the system, the VA penalized veterans for owning third-party insurance, particularly Medicare. Leaders in both the House and the Senate got to work to fix this issue and introduced bills in both Chambers of Congress to allow the VA to pay the remaining balance of emergency care after a veteran's third- party insurance was applied. This made good common sense. At the time, the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, stated the following on this very floor: ``The bill I am introducing would amend current law so that a veteran who had outside insurance would be eligible for reimbursement in the event that any outside insurance does not cover the full amount of the emergency care.'' Mr. President, congressional intent does not get any clearer than that. While the Emergency Care Fairness Act was being considered in committee, the VA is on the record as having supported the intent of the bill. Everything was going according to plan and the President signed the bill into law in February of 2010. The problem arose when after the law was passed, the VA implemented a new regulation which continued to deny veterans' legitimate emergency room claims. Despite having previously supported the Emergency Care Fairness Act, the VA reversed course and elected not to comply. This went on for 6 years, and hundreds of thousands of veterans had their emergency room claims denied by the VA. It was not until a veteran from Minnesota named Richard Staab had a heart attack in 2015 that the VA's illegal regulation was challenged in court. Mr. Staab was rushed to the emergency room following his heart attack and accrued $48,000 in medical expenses. Because he carried limited Medicare insurance, the VA denied his claim for reimbursement, as it had done for so many veterans, even though his Medicare didn't come close to covering the cost of his treatment. Mr. Staab sued the VA, and in April of this year, his case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. After hearing the case, the court unanimously ruled in Mr. Staab's favor and ruled that the VA was in violation of the law by denying his claim and specifically ruled that the VA's regulation was in violation of congressional intent of the Emergency Care Fairness Act. Part of the Court's ruling stated: ``Therefore, it is clear from the plain language of the statute that Congress intended the VA to reimburse a veteran for that portion of expenses not covered by a health plan contract.'' This was a huge win for veterans. Unfortunately, today the VA has appealed the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an egregious dereliction of duty and a clear effort to avoid complying with the original intent of Congress back in 2009. Just since the VA's appeal of the ruling, over 100,000 veterans' claims have been put in a pending status. That equates to thousands upon thousands of veterans who are waiting for the VA to help them pay their bills. It is a fact that those most affected by the VA's noncompliance with the Emergency Care Fairness Act are elderly veterans, many of whom are living on fixed incomes and have limited resources to pay medical bills. Often these veterans find themselves dealing with collection agencies as a result of emergency care received in their communities. In an era where we know that more than 20 veterans commit suicide every day, with 65 percent of those veterans aged 50 years or older, this is unacceptable. I want to tell a short story about a constituent of mine who was a veteran that was supposed to be covered by the Emergency Care Fairness Act. His name is Mr. Alfred Dymock. Mr. Dymock is 90 years old, and he served in the Army Air Corps during the Korean war. He flew over 100 combat missions during the war and earned a Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross for his heroic service. Mr. Dymock receives all his medical care at the VA as a disabled veteran but also carries his Medicare Part A, as does nearly every American over the age of 65. During a 1-month span earlier this year, Mr. Dymock collapsed twice in the middle of the night while he was in the bathroom. One time he hit his head and was bleeding. Because his 85-year-old wife was unable to pick him up, she appropriately called 911 each time. In both instances, the ambulance took him to Rapid City Regional Hospital, even though he requested to go to the Fort Meade VA hospital, the VA facility where he normally receives all of his care. The paramedics did not want to take him on the 25-mile drive to Fort Meade because they feared he was having a heart attack and may not survive even in that short of a drive. As a result of these two incidents, Mr. Dymock's emergency room bills totaled over $44,000. After Medicare Part A paid its share, Mr. Dymock still owes Rapid City Regional nearly $10,000. The VA has denied Mr. Dymock's claims to cover this amount because he, like nearly every other American, is eligible for Medicare Part A. The Dymocks do not own a home. They live in an apartment. They live solely on their Social Security and on Mr. Dymock's VA disability payments. If the VA continues to deny his claims, the Dymocks have no ability to pay these medical bills. Today, Mr. Dymock is in hospice care with Stage 4 kidney disease and liver disease. His daughter writes to me that even as frail and ill as Mr. Dymock is, he wants to know before he dies that his bills are covered so he can have peace. It was veterans like Mr. Dymock in Rapid City, SD, that Congress intended to help when it passed the Emergency Care Fairness Act in 2009. Today I call on the VA to drop their appeal of the court's ruling and begin writing new regulations that comply with the law as Congress intended to properly reimburse our veterans for their emergency room care. I fully understand there is a cost associated with this course of action. Taking care of our veterans and complying with the law in this case is not a cost issue. I believe it is a moral issue, and in this case, it is also a legal issue. Complying with the intent of the Emergency Care Fairness Act is also simply the right thing to do. Should the VA agree, I stand ready to support them in their efforts to take care of our veterans and to give them medical care which they need, both from the VA and in the private sector. While we certainly have a long way to go to fix VA health care, I fully believe that implementing the Emergency Care Fairness Act as it was intended is a step in the right direction. I look forward to working with the Secretary of the VA and my colleagues on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on a broad range of initiatives that continue to improve health care for our veterans. It is my goal to keep our veterans at the center of all we do. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for our veterans in supporting the Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2009. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Cyril ``Kofi'' Gunu, 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. Kofi is a graduate of Brandon High School in Brandon, SD. He attends Augustana University in Sioux Falls, where he studies economics and political science. He is a positive and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his experience and who has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kofi 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, first, I want to start by thanking my colleagues here today, particularly Chairman Enzi, who leads the Budget Committee, as well as Senator Perdue for not only being the only freshman who serves on the Budget Committee but for leading us on the floor in the discussion of this very important topic of our Federal broken budget system. Once again, today, Congress has just met our deadline to fund the government past the end of the fiscal year. While many of us in the Chamber, as well as the American people, are rightly frustrated by this requirement for a last-minute reprieve, it is a reminder of our broken Federal budget process and why we can no longer afford to continue down this dangerous path. I spent a great deal of time holding different meetings across South Dakota during August, meeting with folks all over the State. During that time, our soaring national debt and runaway spending has continued to be a concern to me. What I relayed to them about our country's fiscal future and what I would relay to you now is that it is just not very pretty. I shared with them a report from the Congressional Budget Office, which, in January of this year, released an indepth analysis of our debt and our deficit. It found that, by 2026, annual deficits will double the share of GDP to 4.9 percent--more than tripling in dollar terms to $1.37 trillion, or $1,370 billion, as the chairman of the Budget Committee likes to put it. It also found that in 2026, just 10 short years from now, 99 percent of revenue that comes into the Federal Government--income taxes, both personal and corporate, all the gas taxes, all the fees--will go back out in mandatory payments and net interest spending, leaving no room to pay for roads, bridges, health care, our Armed Forces, and other vital needs within our Nation. That 99 percent number, as they projected in 10 years, is a crisis. I would suggest to my colleagues that crisis is not in 10 years. That crisis is now. Earlier, we heard Senator Corker explain very, very eloquently the fact that it takes time to move things here. I suggest that time is of the essence, and we no longer have a 10-year cycle in which to make these changes. We have to begin the process of fixing this broken system, and we need to begin now. In 2026, our country turns 250 years old. Wouldn't it be a marvelous goal if, by that time, we not only had this process fixed, but it was actually working once again? The CBO report concluded that the driver for this rising debt is largely from growing mandatory payments, as we heard our colleagues say. That is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as interest on our debt. Yet here in the Senate, when we work through the appropriations process to determine the best way to spend Americans' hard-earned money, we don't even vote on mandatory payments, which are mandatory payments on mandatory programs. Today, those mandatory payments account for nearly three-quarters of all Federal spending. That means the continuing resolution we just did is based upon about 28 percent of the total amount we will spend next year. It is simply not acceptable that we continue to look at and try to balance yearly deficits of $500-plus billion every single year when we only look at 28 percent of the total spending that goes on. Let me suggest this. In order to fix this, as my colleagues have said today, we have to begin a process with expectations that the process actually works once again and that there are timelines established well in advance of the end of the fiscal year. But even more than that, any process we use in the future also has to bring in accountability, authorization, and appropriations together. Why is it that when we talk about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--well, we just don't talk about it. There is no place in which we can actually sit down in a committee assigned specifically for Social Security, a committee assigned specifically for Medicare, or one for Medicaid. Why is it that, in States like South Dakota, where we have the South Dakota Retirement System--a retirement system which is one of the best funded and best run in the entire United States, and it has been there since the 1970s--it gets looked at every single year. Yet, as to Social Security, which is such a huge and important part of a lot of people's lives in the United States, we are afraid to touch. It is not a matter of cutting it. It is a matter of managing and making it more efficient and delivering the services and actually keeping it up to date-- revenues and expenses--so that the people a generation from now can count on it being there. It is irresponsible for us to sit back here and to say that we are going to balance our budgets this year and make a commitment without looking at all of the programs that are out there because we simply can't balance a budget. We can't take care of those programs--Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid--unless we actively participate in managing them and in making good decisions. Again, the buy-in from the public is that what we are trying to do is to make it better for them long term and that we have their best interests at heart. With that, I say thank you. I think this is a critically important thing for all of us. Last year, we did an omnibus bill at the end of the year, and a group of us got together and said no more. In our freshmen bear den, as we call it, we said: It is time we have a meeting with our leadership. I cannot tell you how pleased I was with the reception that we received from our leadership, who said: Look, we agree. You guys work together and put this through. I give Senator Perdue huge accolades for actually doing the hard work to get this done. This is important to our country, and this is one way in which we can begin to build credibility once again with the citizens of our Nation. I thank the Senator for the work he is doing, and I certainly look forward to working with our colleagues to fix a broken budget system--not only in the Senate but in Congress--and to get on with actually sending back to the American people on a regular basis a budget they believe in and they can count on. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life and work of Dr. Raymond C. Bushland, a native of South Dakota. Dr. Bushland, along with his colleague Edward F. Knipling of Texas, made tremendous scientific advancements in eradicating and suppressing the threat posed by pests to the livestock and crops that contribute to the world's food supply. Dr. Bushland will be posthumously honored with the Golden Goose Award for his and Dr. Knipling's research on the screwworm fly. The Golden Goose Award recognizes scientists who have made significant contributions to society through unique federally funded projects. Bushland was raised in Clearlake, SD, and graduated from South Dakota State University in 1932 with degrees in entomology and zoology. After earning his masters in 1934, he began working at a laboratory for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Dallas, TX, where he met Dr. Knipling. The two shared a fascination with the screwworm fly, a rampant and aggressive pest that primarily targeted cattle. The screwworm fly could decimate herds in a matter of weeks and was nearly impossible to prevent. Through their research, Bushland and Knipling hypothesized that scientists could combat the pest by controlling its population, an approach that was met with great skepticism. Regardless, Bushland successfully devised the ``sterile insect technique,'' a revolutionary method in controlling pest populations. The hypothesis was soon confirmed. By preventing regular reproduction, they began seeing results immediately, and in 1982, the screwworm fly was declared completely eradicated in the U.S. Since this breakthrough, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has partnered with countries throughout the Western Hemisphere to continue eradicating screwworm flies and preventing reinfestation. The technique pioneered by Bushland and Knipling saved the cattle industry an estimated $20 billion since its implementation and has been applied to various insect species since. Today, scientists are using the same technique to combat the spread of the Zika virus. This feat is lauded as one of the most important developments in pest control, as well as one of the first peaceful uses of nuclear radiation. Bushland's work represents a pinnacle of scientific achievement that helped pave a new era of food security and public health. His curiosity, perseverance, and ingenuity continue to be a source of inspiration for students in South Dakota and across the country. For his commitment to science, education, and society, we thank him.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. First of all, let me just thank you for putting together this discussion today. Let me thank both the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Iowa for their service to our country, although the Senator from Iowa is clearly too young to have retired already. I did have the opportunity and the true privilege of serving as the Governor of South Dakota and of working with a number of members of the National Guard--in fact, not only Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City, SD, but also the 114th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard, out of Sioux Falls. Both have participated in the defense of our country time and again. Today, let my just add a little bit of my thoughts in terms of what is going on here in the Senate today. I speak of it not in terms of partisan issues but rather as statements of fact and finding a way to identify them and finding ways in which we can actually take our system, make it better than what it is today, and try to discover what it is that makes this system down here so difficult to work through in times in which we should find solid support for such items as a Defense appropriations bill. South Dakotans have heard me say time and again that the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the defense of our country. Unless that responsibility is fulfilled, our freedoms are in jeopardy. Yet, six times--six times--this body has been blocked by Senate Democrats from considering legislation to fund the Department of Defense. That is funding necessary for our troops to accomplish their missions. It sounds partisan, but it is simply a fact. Democrats have made a conscious decision to block even debate of this appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate. Yet, as we noted yesterday during our colloquy yesterday, the Defense appropriations bill is not a partisan bill. In fact, it passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously. There was not a single vote against it--Democrat and Republican alike sending it out, saying it is a good bill. It is largely free of budget gimmicks, and it is in line with the budget that we agreed to last December. I have said since taking office that we must get back to what we call regular order when it comes to the budget process, by passing not only the Defense appropriations bill, but I think we should be passing all of the appropriations bills one by one--not as one single huge bill but as 12 separate appropriations bills in which we get the opportunity, with a 60-vote agreement, to debate the merits of each bill separately on the floor. Leader McConnell, to his credit, set aside 12 separate weeks to bring those bills down in order to accomplish this. We have not gotten the job done. It is an important tool, I think. If we were to go through these 12 bills, it is the one way in which we can actually fine-tune part of the Federal budget. But I guess there is another issue that should be discussed as well. Even if we did all 12 bills in the Senate--or in the House--we would be talking only about funding defense and nondefense discretionary funding--nothing about the mandatory payments that our Federal Government is expected to put together. Right now, even if we pass all 12 bills, the only part of the budget that we talk about is $1.15 trillion out of a $4 trillion national budget on an annual basis. How do you fix a $550 billion deficit if all you are going to talk about is 25 percent of the budget in the first place? Yet what we are talking about is trying to balance that budget--half of which goes to defense--on the backs of the young men and women who stand up for our country. That is not right, yet, that is what sequestration does. Now, all of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate today with me, in addition to many of the others--both Republican and Democrat--are united in an effort to try to attack this crisis. You see, here is the deal. The Congressional Budget Office has already projected that within 10 years, 99 percent of all of the Federal revenue coming in--gas tax money, personal income tax money, corporate income tax money--is going to go back out in two categories: interest on the Federal debt and mandatory payments on mandatory programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There will be nothing left for defense, nothing left for roads and bridges, nothing left for research, nothing left for education. That crisis, which occurs in 10 years, is not a crisis then; it is a crisis now. How do we address that if we can't even start with the one item that we all seem to agree on, and that is funding our troops? That is the reason why we are here today. We need to start someplace. So as freshmen, we are down here to say enough is enough. We want to change the way that the Senate operates. We are prepared to stand down here and to tell everybody else that there is a better way to do it. Back in South Dakota, when you send off young men who are in the National Guard, you send them off and you wish them the best. You really mean it. Their moms and their dads are there. You tell them that you will do everything you can to see that they come home safe. We have that same obligation here in the Senate. You see, I don't want our forces to go to war and have it be a fair fight. What I want is for our forces to go to war with absolute certainty that they will crush whoever is in the way, that they will come in with the best strategic plan, that they will come in with the best intelligence, with the best equipment, and with all of the necessary supplies that they need. They put their lives on the line. We should not be sitting here today trying to leverage--Republicans or Democrats--what we think is more important, rather than simply agreeing as Americans that this is the most important thing that we do. We defend our country. That is what we get sent here for in the first place. That is what we all committed to do. Yet we find ourselves today in a position where, once again and for six times, our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided it is politically expedient to get other things done, that they are going to withhold what has been in the past a bipartisan agreement to fund our troops on a regular basis and in a timely fashion. This has to stop. If we are going to talk about the bigger picture of fixing these budgets and talk about all of the other items that should be voted on every single year--not just the defense and nondefense discretionary items but the mandatory payments as well--we ought to at least start with something that we all agree on. Either side, Republicans or Democrats, will say that they care about our troops. I believe them. But let's put that into action. Let's actually step forward before we leave on this break and make darn sure that our troops are taken care of and that it is no longer a partisan issue or being held as a chit to try to get something else done within the Senate. With that, I appreciate the fact that the Senator put this together. Once again, thank you to our other Members who are members of the Armed Services Committee. I am very, very proud to be a part of this very, very special body, but it is time we got back to work and that we recognize that the crisis 10 years from now should be addressed now and not in 10 years. Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I look forward to listening to my other colleagues today as well. Thank you.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I thank Senator Daines. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the colloquy with Senator Daines and Senator Capito, who is also here with us today. I spent 8 years as the Governor of South Dakota. One of the titles you carry when you are the Governor of a State is that you are also the head of the National Guard. You are the chief of the National Guard. You get a chance to actually work as a commander in chief with those individuals who put themselves in harm's way. When you start out, you wonder whether this is simply a term of art, whether it is simply one of those nice titles. During the time that I was Governor, there was a case in which we were literally sending young men and women off to do battle for the United States of America. They were volunteering. They were stepping up. They were leaving, hoping to come home. Moms and dads were worried, and with just cause. When they did come home, we would celebrate their safe return, but in some cases, we also mourned with moms and dads because their loved one did not make it home. They gave everything. Yet there seems to be some miscommunication here within the Senate that somehow our actions are not communicated in a way that is impacting what those young people who put themselves in harm's way see. Think about this. As Members of the U.S. Senate, you would think that Republicans and Democrats would put some things aside, and I do believe that we will eventually do that. But I think there is nothing wrong with those of us who believe that we should expedite the process of bringing the Defense appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate. We should bring attention to the fact that it is not being done today, that it is not being done in an appropriate fashion, and it is not being done in a timely fashion. That, in itself, sends a message to a lot of young men and women who have put themselves in harm's way and who have already committed themselves to the defense of our country. It was just this last Sunday that we marked the 15th anniversary of the bombings we have referred to as 9/11, the terror attacks which took nearly 3,000 American lives and occurred in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. Fifteen years ago these attacks were perpetrated by terrorists whose sole goal was to terrorize American citizens and destroy our way of life. Fifteen years later, that risk and that threat have not gone away. The No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the defense of our country. Unless that responsibility is fulfilled, our freedoms are in jeopardy. Yet at this time we in the Senate have been unable to consider legislation--and I mean only consider legislation, not pass it; simply consider it--which we can bring onto the floor the way the Founding Fathers wanted and debate how to make it better. We know we will pass a defense appropriations bill, but the question of how we do it and in what order we do it is important. I think whether or not we are prepared to come to the floor--Senate Republicans and Democrats alike--and actually openly discuss the appropriations process is very important. Yet at this time we in the Senate have not been able to even consider the legislation that funds our troops and our military operations for the upcoming year. Our Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle are refusing to even bring the Department of Defense Appropriations Act to the floor so we can debate and amend legislation that would equip our Armed Forces with the tools they need to continue their missions. It is one thing if bringing it to the floor meant that it would pass with a majority vote. That is not what it means. What it means is that it still takes 60 votes, meaning Democrats still have the opportunity, if they disagree with what we finally end up with, to stop it from moving forward. But you have to start someplace, and starting with the Defense appropriations bill is very appropriate. This is not a controversial bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved it by a vote of 30 to 0 earlier this year. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which passed the committee, also adheres to the bipartisan budget agreement that was signed into law last year, and it refrains from any gimmicks and other controversial measures. Simply put, there is no excuse for continuing to block--six times now--the Defense appropriations bill from even being considered on the floor of the Senate. This senseless obstructionism from the other side of the aisle comes at a time in which, according to a recent FOX News poll, a record-high 54 percent of American voters believe that the United States is less safe now than it was before the 9/11 attacks. Continuing to block any appropriations bill is ill-advised, but blocking the Defense appropriations bill causes unnecessary uncertainty and endangers our national security efforts. One of the reasons we created a constitution in the first place was that our Founding Fathers wanted to provide for the common defense, and that is what this is all about. It should not be blocked from even having a debate. I encourage our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in recommitting ourselves to the primary purpose of government--defending our great Nation from those who seek to destroy us--by at least allowing us to debate the merits of the appropriations bill for the defense of our country on the floor of the Senate. I most certainly appreciate Senator Daines taking the time to organize this colloquy, and I most certainly appreciate my other fellow freshmen Senators stepping up because this is an important item that I think should bind us together and not separate us within the Senate. Thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life and legacy of former South Dakota State Senator James Dunn. Jim was born in Lead, SD, on June 27, 1927, and died in Sturgis, SD, on August 11, 2016, at the age of 89. Immediately after graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Army Signal Corps and served from 1945 through 1947. He returned home to Lead and worked at the Homestake Gold Mine for the next 38 years. During that time, he also raised four children with his wife, Betty, and earned a bachelor's degree in business administration and economics. At the mine, he was a crewman, a machinist, the assistant director of public affairs, and then the director of public affairs. Jim inspired his coworkers with his intelligence, his humor, and his leadership. He became a constant promoter for the Black Hills and all of South Dakota. He inspired magazine articles, books, films, and other publicity about South Dakota. He was also an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer worker for dozens of local and State organizations during his 89 years. He was even the first male president of the Black Hills Girl Scout Council. In 1971, he was elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives. In 1973, he was elected to the South Dakota Senate and served until his retirement in 2000. His 30 years of consecutive service is matched by only three other legislators. Jim Dunn was elected to many legislative leadership positions, including the chairmanship of the executive board of the legislature. However, his leadership went beyond any position he held. He was a great mentor to all the legislators who served with him, including me. For my first 4 years of working as the majority leader, he sat next to me. The wisdom of his additional 20 years of experience kept me out of trouble. No one saw the many times I wanted to jump up and join a floor fight, but Jim would calmly grab my arm and say, ``Not yet, wait.'' His deep, raspy whispers guided me and taught me how to be a leader. Jim removed the rancor from committee and floor debates with his knowledge and explanation of the facts. He guided our discussions back to what was really important. Then he would lead us to consensus. He was a tough negotiator, but also a practical compromiser. He always brought the focus to what was best for the people back home and all the people of South Dakota. He was always there for us in solving problems and creating new opportunities, such as saving the State's railroads, increasing tourism as the prime sponsor of the Deadwood gaming law, substantial expansion of the financial services industry, implementing welfare reform, reducing property taxes, and promoting the transformation of the Homestake Gold Mine into the deepest underground physics laboratory in the world. But more important than all of his career accomplishments is the kind of person Jim Dunn was. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and friend to all who knew him. He had an enormously positive impact on the many thousands of people he met and touched with his kindness and generosity. South Dakota is a better State and we are a better people because of Jim Dunn. With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the life of this public servant and great human being, my friend, Jim Dunn. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today I recognize Noah Cozad, 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. Noah is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. He recently graduated from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, where he studied political science, global studies, and German. He 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 Noah for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today I recognize Andrew Leiferman, 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. Andrew is a graduate of T.F. Riggs High School in Pierre, SD. He attends the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, where he studies finance and economics. He is an analytical 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 Andrew for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.