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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Angela Merkle, 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. Angela is a graduate of Canton High School in Canton, SD. She recently graduated from Augustana University in Sioux Falls, where she studied government and international affairs. She is a positive and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Angela 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 ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to an upcoming cloture vote on the conference report for the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, commonly known as the Customs conference report. This vote is expected tomorrow. While I am supportive of the conference report as it relates to the Customs legislation, added to the bill at the last minute is a measure known as the Internet Tax Freedom Act or ITFA for short. ITFA would put in place a moratorium to permanently prevent State and local entities from imposing existing sales and use taxes on Internet services. In the past, I have expressed my support for ITFA as long as it was tied to the Marketplace Fairness Act, or MFA, which would allow State and local governments to collect sales and use taxes from online retailers without a physical presence within their State. In South Dakota, this is a matter of fairness to the families who own small businesses and support our local communities. They collect sales taxes on their products and on their services. Internet sales providers are not required to provide a collection service for those States for services or products that are being delivered into those States. It requires congressional action in order to allow them to accomplish this. Pairing these plans would have been a net benefit for States, local governments, and small business owners who are already required to collect sales and use taxes on their products and services. Together they would represent sound tax policy, but that is not what we are doing with the Customs conference report by including ITFA and not including the Marketplace Fairness Act. ITFA, enacted by itself, would put in place a moratorium to permanently promote State and local entities from imposing taxes on Internet services at the State and local level with no consideration or offset for the tax revenue lost by States or local governments that already collect many of these taxes. I am all for cutting taxes, but I am also a strong proponent for the Tenth Amendment and local control and tax fairness for South Dakota businesses. In places like South Dakota, we are actually pretty good at balancing budgets. In fact, we are required do it every single year. Washington has no business telling States or city commissioners how to run their books. ITFA has zero impact on the Federal budget, but it really impacts States and local communities. I believe ITFA paired with the Marketplace Fairness Act continues to make sense. One without the other does not. My opposition is not based on disagreement over Internet access. We need it. We should make it available. My opposition is based on the principle that we are taking away important revenue sources for State and local governments without any means for them to recoup their losses so they can continue to provide essential services to our communities. Let me explain why sound and comprehensive tax policy is so important and why ITFA and MFA should continue to be a package deal. If the President signs a Customs conference report into law in its current form with ITFA attached to it, municipalities in my home State, South Dakota, will lose $4.3 million in revenue annually. That is a revenue they rely on to fund essential services, such as training for firefighters and police officers, maintenance for parks, upkeep of community centers and libraries, and repairs to critical roads and bridges. Without any way of recouping the loss, local leaders will be forced to make a tough decision to cut those important services to the community or to raise other taxes. Why is Washington making this decision? In addition to municipalities losing out on important funds, the State of South Dakota would also lose out to the tune of $9.3 million annually. Maybe in Washington DC we don't care about $9.3 million, but in South Dakota they do. Well, we don't balance our budget, but every single State out there or just about every State does. When we step back in and we tell them we are going to unilaterally take away one source of revenue, but we still expect them to provide the services, it seems to me we are moving in the wrong direction. We don't have the luxury of South Dakota punting. We are required to balance our books every year. At the State and local level, every single dollar counts. Singled out, it is not right for the Federal Government to dictate State and local budgets, as the ITFA part of the conference reports attempts to do, to cut a State and local revenue source. It is unfair to States like ours, which operate under tight budgets and stretch every dollar to the maximum. In fact, in South Dakota we aren't overtaxing. Our State burden is the second lowest in the Nation. We don't have an income tax. We rely on a very broad sales tax. That is the way our people have wanted to do it. That is why conventional wisdom in this body and elsewhere has always been the ITFA, which would stop taxing the cost of Internet services, would be paired with the MFA--the Marketplace Fairness Act--because MFA lets State and local governments recover the losses from ITFA. MFA would make certain that Main Street businesses aren't at a competitive disadvantage to companies that have no physical presence, employees or investments in States such as South Dakota because right now they don't have to collect that sales tax or the use tax for products that are being delivered into the State. Brick-and-mortar businesses have that requirement. Right now Main Street businesses are operating under a disadvantage. MFA would level the playing field. These brick-and-mortar stores are the businesses that provide good-paying jobs in South Dakota, pay local property taxes, sponsor community baseball leagues, and send their kids and grandkids to South Dakota schools and invest in the future of our State. We have an opportunity to level the playing field for them, rather than picking winners and losers so they can continue to be successful and enrich the lives of South Dakotans. Let's let the States and local governments decide how to manage their finances. Under MFA, South Dakota would bring in approximately $25 million in new tax revenue, which would more than make up for the losses under ITFA. If we pass ITFA without MFA, it dramatically decreases the chance of MFA being passed in the years to come, which is a huge blow to the mom-and-pop businesses who are struggling to compete with online vendors. MFA passing the Senate without ITFA is unlikely dead on arrival in the House. ITFA would see a similar fate if not dumped into the Customs conference report. It would not pass the Senate alone. There is simply no evidence to suggest that either measure would pass as stand-alone legislation, but together sound tax policy would move. That is why it is so important that ITFA not be implemented without also implementing the Marketplace Fairness Act. Together the two can make a real impact on the lives of South Dakotans and all Americans by providing permanent tax relief to South Dakota families, leveling the field of play for brick-and-mortar businesses that are contending with an increasingly competitive online marketplace and at the same time assure State and local governments can continue to provide essential services to their constituents while balancing their budgets. That is something we could learn a lot about. Because the Customs conference report includes only ITFA and fails to address MFA, I will open oppose cloture on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, conservation easements are an important tool when we talk about rural America. They are used on a regular basis, but whenever entering into a conservation easement with the government, farmers, ranchers, and landowners should be made aware of all of the options made available to them, not just permanent easements. While there are many programs and options available, all too often landowners are not aware of these options and will unknowingly enter into a contract with the government because they don't realize there are also shorter term options available to them. This amendment will aggregate information for landowners and will allow landowners to choose from conservation options that are shorter term and are not a permanent contract with the government. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3182, as modified.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and legacy of Paul Kinsman. Paul was born in Watertown, SD, on September 7, 1958, and died in Pierre, SD, on January 10, 2016, at the young age of 57. Paul was a lifelong South Dakotan and a dedicated public servant to the citizens of our State. After earning his law degree, Paul began 28 years of public service to the people of South Dakota. We are a better State and a better people because of his hard work and his dedication. As an administrative law judge, the deputy commissioner of administration, the director of property taxes and special taxes, the commissioner of administration, and the secretary of revenue, he inspired his coworkers with his intelligence, his humor, and his tenacity for getting things done. During my 8 years working as Governor of South Dakota, Paul served as commissioner of the Bureau of Administration and secretary of revenue. He was a burly, teddy bear of a man. No matter how hard the problem or how challenging the issue, whenever we met he had a gleam in his eyes and a smile on his face that told me without words that we were going to solve that problem or meet that challenge. And we did because of him. As an administrative law judge and tax collector, he earned the respect and admiration of the public, even when his rulings and applications of law were not in their favor. He was straightforward and fair, which South Dakotans appreciate. As the head of the Bureau of Administration, he led and championed many projects that increased the efficiency of State government to serve the people and preserve the heritage of South Dakota in the people's house, our State capitol. But more important than all of his career accomplishments is the kind of person Paul Kinsman was. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and friend to all who knew him. He had a tremendously positive impact on the many thousands of people he met and touched with his kindness and generosity. With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the life and legacy of this public servant and my friend, Paul Kinsman. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life and legacy of Paul Kinsman. Paul was born in Watertown, SD, on September 7, 1958, and died in Pierre, SD, on January 10, 2016, at the young age of 57. Paul was a lifelong South Dakotan and dedicated public servant to the citizens of our State. After earning his law degree, Paul began 28 years of public service to the people of South Dakota. We are a better State and a better people because of his hard work and dedication. As an administrative law judge, the deputy commissioner of administration, the director of property taxes and special taxes, the commissioner of Administration, and the secretary of Revenue, he inspired his coworkers with his intelligence, his humor, and his tenacity for getting things done. During my 8 years working as Governor of South Dakota, Paul served as commissioner of the Bureau of Administration and secretary of Revenue. He was a burly teddy bear of a man. No matter how hard the problem or how challenging the issue, whenever we met, he had a gleam in his eyes and a smile on his face that told me without words that we were going to solve that problem or meet that challenge. And we did because of him. As an administrative law judge and tax collector, he earned the respect and admiration of the public, even when his rulings and application of law were not in their favor. He was straightforward and fair, which South Dakotans appreciate. As the head of Bureau of Administration, he led and championed many projects that increased the efficiency of State government to serve the people and preserved the heritage of South Dakota in the people's house--our State capitol. But more important than all of his career accomplishments is the kind of person Paul Kinsman was. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and friend to all who knew him. He had a tremendously positive impact on the many thousands of people he met and touched with his kindness and generosity. With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the life and legacy of this public servant and my friend, Paul Kinsman. Thank you.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a great South Dakotan on his notable accomplishments and his career, starting as an elevator operator in the Senate. His career spanned seven decades, 10 Presidents, and 32 Congresses. To say Jim Smith is an institution in Washington, DC, would be an understatement. Jim Smith was born in Aberdeen, SD, but spent the majority of his childhood in my hometown of Pierre, SD. After graduating from Pierre High School in 1948, Jim attended the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where he was the quarterback for the Miners when they won a championship in 1951. After graduating from SDM&T in 1952, Jim decided law school was the best route for him, and this South Dakota boy moved to the big city to attend George Washington School of Law in Washington, DC. Like many hard-working South Dakotans, Jim worked his way through law school, starting his career operating the very same Senate elevators we take today in the U.S. Capitol. Jim's work ethic caught the eye of many, and he eventually moved on to work for his home State Senator, Karl Mundt. Jim worked as a legislative assistant for Senator Mundt and went on to become minority counsel on the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. After his time working on Capitol Hill, Jim began a successful career in the banking sector until he was called back to government service, this time with the U.S. Treasury where he served as Deputy Undersecretary. In 1973, Jim became the first South Dakotan appointed as Comptroller of the Currency, an office created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Jim Smith served as Comptroller of the Currency under two Presidents and eventually left to rejoin the private sector in 1976. He went on to have a successful career partnering with another government relations professional to establish their own firm, which will continue to bear his name even after his retirement. Jim Smith embodies the work ethic and attitude we are known for in our State. He has earned his place on the pages of South Dakota history books. To Jim Smith and his wife of 37 years, Karen, I wish you the best on your retirement, and I thank you for your years of dedicated public service. Thank you for making South Dakota proud.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Kristi Blackler, 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. Kristi is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in international studies and political science. She is a positive and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kristi 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, today I recognize Sophie Doeden, 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. Sophie is a graduate of Beresford High School in Beresford, SD. Currently, she is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in history and economics. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sophie 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 wish to commemorate and reflect on the life and legacy of Vernon Ashley who passed away on November 10, 2015. Vernon Ashley was born on January 15, 1916, at the mouth of Wolf Creek along the banks of the Missouri River near present day Fort Thompson, SD. In 1946, after serving in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Vernon was elected tribal chairman of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. As chairman, he was credited both with helping to author the tribe's first constitution and bylaws and for working to preserve tribal lands for his people during the Federal Government's flood control projects of the 1940s and 50s. He was a servant to his people of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and to his fellow South Dakotans. After nearly 10 years of working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Vernon went to work for South Dakota as the first Indian Affairs coordinator, serving in that role under three different Governors. He was a fluent Dakota speaker whose Dakota name was Sinkpe, which means muskrat. This past July, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe honored him by making him a chief. The eagle bone whistle was traditionally used by some Plains Indian warrior societies. When Vernon and his fellow veterans were honored at his memorial services, several people heard the sound of the eagle bone whistle even though no one was playing one. Therefore, may the sound of the eagle bone whistle be with us, too, when we need to be inspired to be brave and do what is right for the people we serve. Chief Vernon Ashley will be remembered by all for his humility, for being a man of faith, and for his friendship to so many. With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the life and legacy of this good friend of mine, a great leader, Chief Vernon Ashley. Thank you.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I echo the feelings of my friend and colleague from the State of Kansas. He speaks with emotion and he speaks with a heartfelt sense of concern that many of us have with regard to this proposed agreement by the President. I rise to speak about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Much has been said about the agreement over the past weeks and months. My colleagues have addressed a great number of concerns and deficiencies about the deal and many outside experts have testified before multiple committees of Congress explaining their views as well. In addressing these concerns, I wish to ask just a few simple questions: Do we believe that with this agreement the United States and our allies are safer today than we were 1 year ago and will we be safer when the nuclear limitations expire in 10 years? The answers to these questions are very important. They will dictate what we decide in one of the most important votes we will cast in the 114th Congress. After closely examining the agreement, the following can be concluded: Upon verification by the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--of Iranian compliance, supposedly within a few months if Iran is in compliance, they will, after payment of their obligations, receive around $56 billion that were frozen in overseas accounts. Further revenue will be generated because the European Union has agreed to lift its ban on the import of Iranian oil, thereby providing Iran with billions more in revenue with which to repair its oilfields and begin to repair its battered economy. According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran's Deputy Petroleum Minister recently stated that his country's oil exports would reach 2.3 million barrels a day, compared with around 1.2 million barrels per day today. Iran would also gain access to 50 million barrels of oil which have been held offshore, and economists estimate that Iran's economy will grow up to 9 percent in the year after the implementation of the agreement. This verification that we talk about by the IAEA will be accomplished through protocols that Members of the Senate have not seen in writing and that the administration has not--nor will they--agreed to provide to us. This is in direct contravention to the Iran review act, which the President signed into law, agreeing to provide all documents and side agreements and, according to reports, will unbelievably allow the Iranians to provide their own inspections of their military work on nuclear sites to the IAEA. A robust inspection of a regime requires an anytime, anywhere inspection policy. Unfortunately, under the idea of managed access, as found in this agreement, if the IAEA requests access to an undeclared location, under this agreement Iran can delay access to the facility for 2 weeks or longer with the outlined multistep process for undeclared locations. U.S. sanctions against foreign firms for dealing with Iran in the oil and financial sectors, which have been the most effective sanctions enacted against Iran, will be suspended upon implementation of this agreement. Sanctions prohibiting U.S. firms from conducting business with Iran will remain in place, but with a large carve-out for non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by U.S. companies. Some sanctions will also be lifted against Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the entity that actually runs the military aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Furthermore, the agreement requires the United States to make certain that U.S. State and local governments comply with sanctions relief contravening their own sanctions placed on Iran. Now, this proposal, the JCPOA, also commits the P5+1--that working group of countries--to work to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, which we can presume would mean from even our allies who feel deeply threatened by this agreement which transforms Iran--a terrorist State-- into a breakout nuclear power and still a terrorist State. In year 5 of the agreement, Iran will be removed from the United Nations arms embargo. Yet as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in August: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' In year 8 of the agreement, Iran will be removed from the United Nations ballistic missile embargo. Now, in July of this year, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter confirmed to me in a hearing that under this deal, he could not rule out Iran acquiring, within 10 years, an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the United States. This means Iran would have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. soil in a decade. These comments come after Gen. Paul Selva, now the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told me during a separate hearing that Iran remains the leading State sponsor of terrorism, and resources gained in sanctions relief under the nuclear deal could be used by Iran to continue sponsoring terrorism. Under the agreement, the United States agreed to allow the nuclear- related equipment to remain in Iran under lock and key, and Iran will be allowed to continue researching IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges. Iran will also be allowed to begin testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges in cascades of 30 at year 8 of the agreement. After 8 years, many of the research-and-development restrictions are removed and Iran will begin to manufacture advanced centrifuges. All R&D restrictions end at 10 years. Finally, after 10 years, Iran will be free of the restrictions on enrichment and could become a nuclear threshold State--legally, under international law--only postponing the inevitable nuclearization of Iran. So with these facts established, I am left with what appears to me to be the undeniable answers to my questions: The United States and our Middle Eastern allies are absolutely not safer today than we were 1 year ago, and we will all be left unquestionably less safe when this agreement ends in 10 years. I, therefore, oppose this deal. It is an agreement that will reward a violent terrorist regime. Instead of stopping the Iranians from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, it merely delays it. This deal is shortsighted and dangerous for our security. Just a few days ago I was talking with my 8-year-old grandson. He asked me what I was working on in the Senate. I told him about the President's proposed deal with Iran. I told him what we were giving them. I told him about the money, the lifting of the sanctions, the access to weapons and, soon, the ability to make a very bad bomb. After all of this, he looked at me and he simply asked: ``What do we get out of it?'' If this third grader can see how bad this deal is, so should we. In conclusion, I urge my fellow Senators to vote not only to allow us to debate this issue but to vote in opposition to the President's deal with Iran. It is truly wrong for the United States and for the world. If my grandson understood that we truly are getting a bad deal--one that we should reject--most certainly we should understand as well. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen hero, David or ``Dave'' Ruhl of Rapid City, SD. Dave was an engine captain on the Mystic Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest near Rapid City. Since June 14, Dave had been serving our country on a temporary assignment as the assistant fire management officer on the Big Valley Ranger District on the Modoc National Forest near Adin, CA. Dave had been bravely and selflessly fighting the Frog Fire near Alturas, CA, along with many other firefighters who were risking their lives to protect the people and communities near that fire incident. Friends say he took this voluntary assignment to learn more about firefighting and improve his skills because he was so passionate about his profession. Tragically, the team lost contact with Dave on Thursday evening, July 30. Search and rescue teams worked diligently to locate Dave with the hope that he would be found safe. Sadly, Dave did not survive. An investigation will reveal details about this very unfortunate and tragic loss of life, and there will be a learning which comes from this. His death is a great loss to the State of South Dakota, and his legacy and heroism will not be forgotten. Dave will be memorialized forever on the South Dakota Firefighter Memorial in Pierre, his name etched in history for all to honor. Professionally, Dave will be remembered as a passionate, knowledgeable, and well-trained firefighter. That is according to his colleagues who admired him and respected him. His commitment to helping others was evident throughout his life. Dave began his Forest Service career in 2001 as a seasonal forestry technician. Prior to that, he served in the U.S. Coast Guard and as a correctional officer with the State of South Dakota. Dave will also be remembered personally as a dad, a husband, and a selfless public servant who longed to help others. Dave leaves behind his wife Erin and their two children Tyler and Ava of Rapid City. To them, I offer my deepest sympathy. While we cannot take away the hurt, please know we will never forget the sacrifice Dave made, and we will not forget the sacrifice that you as his family have made. Not everyone is willing to put their life on the line to protect us, but Dave did just exactly that. He put others before himself. Dave is a true hero. We ask the Good Lord to bless the Ruhl family and their friends during this difficult time and we ask all Americans to keep the Ruhl family in their thoughts and in their prayers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, taking place this week in Sturgis, SD. No single week in the entire year boasts a greater influx in the State's overall population than the week of the annual event the first week of August. During that week, motorcyclists gather together in perhaps the largest bike gathering of all time. This year, more than 1 million visitors from across the world are estimated to attend the rally--more than the entire population of South Dakota. What began as a single motorcycle race in 1938, the weeklong rally takes place in the small town of Sturgis in the Black Hills of western South Dakota, a normally quiet town with a population of just over 6,000. During the week of the rally, however, Main Street Sturgis evolves into a platform for chrome, leather, and denim, where motorcycle enthusiasts and other tourists come to enjoy like-minded company, various forms of entertainment, the South Dakota landscape, and local food and grub. The economic impact of the rally is impressive. A study conducted by the Rally Department of the city of Sturgis gauged the economic impact of the 2010 rally, which hosted 466,000 attendees, as generating roughly $817 million dollars in economic activity for the State. That is just in 1 year. And not just the city of Sturgis benefits. Though the rally only lasts a week, the magnificence of the State often compels visitors to stick around even longer. Many attendees travel to South Dakota weeks before the rally begins or extend their stay afterward to travel our State and take in its beauty and many tourist attractions. With the Black Hills National Forest, Badlands National Park, Mount Rushmore National Monument, and the Crazy Horse Memorial all within driving distance, visitors can experience the buzzing commotion of bikers and chrome one day and the pristine beauty of South Dakota's Black Hills the next. The contrast is captivating, and it boosts economic activity throughout the region. By all accounts, this year has been no different. It appears the 75th Annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally is already off to a great start, and it could very well be a record-breaking year. Rally week is always an exciting time to be in South Dakota, and I wish everyone attending this year's rally a safe, happy, and fun-filled trip. Congratulations to everyone who has worked to make the rally a world-renowned event over the past 75 years. I wish our State and the city of Sturgis many more successful years of hosting the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 232.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 159, S. 1297.

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. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 267 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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.