Mike Rounds

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, first let me say thank you to my colleague, the former Governor of Virginia, the Senator from Virginia now. As a former Governor, we have a real interest in making sure that there is a good, cooperative spirit between the Federal Government and State governments. But this evening, as we have gone through an entire day--which is rather unusual in the Senate to have one Senator speaking after another with others here--at a time in which we should be exercising separation, as they say, to have had so many colleagues on the floor shows just how seriously the U.S. Senate is taking this issue. Perhaps the frustration laid out by Members of my conference is that we really want this to move forward as quickly as possible, and we understand that it is very difficult to put together the resources in order to buy those additional pieces of equipment that our friend from Colorado laid out unless we have a long-term plan here in which to also pay for it. So what I would like to do is to share a little bit of what is in this just in terms of a summary of what is in the proposal right now and that we believe is an appropriate, major step in taking care of funding to respond not just to the medical emergency but also to the economic emergency that we have in front of us right now for men and women who are worried about where they are going to get the next paycheck. First of all, under the appropriations section, we have $75 billion for hospitals that is included in the proposal; $20 billion additional for veterans' health that is included; $11 billion more for vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and other preparedness needs. There is an additional $4.5 billion for the CDC--the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC. The reason we have put that in there is we want to be ahead of the game when it comes to making sure they have the resources to take care of the emergency needs that we know are showing up right now There is also an additional $1.7 billion to add new medical equipment to the strategic national stockpile. As my colleague from Colorado was suggesting, this is an area where we need to beef it up, and we need to be able to provide that additional equipment. That is included in this bill that, right now, has been here for 2 days. Also, we understand that at the State level there are other needs as well. There is $20 billion in here for public transportation emergency relief. There is $10 billion built into the bill right now for block grants to the States. That is the broadest type of resources that we provide to the States today. There is an additional $5 billion to be added to FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. Remember that FEMA is now at a level 1, which is basically their highest level. They are coordinating now on a 24-hour basis with every single State in the Nation directly, back and forth, to provide an avenue of communication and logistics so that when parts are found or equipment is found in one area, it can be coordinated to get to an area where it is needed--not so much because we always have all the supplies that we need available right now but because we want the supplies that we do have to get to where they are needed as quickly as possible. That is in operation today. Now, there are other pieces to this that are also really important. One of the reasons you have seen the frustration on the Republican side of this discussion is that there are men and women right now who don't have a paycheck coming in; they have been laid off through no fault of their own. They are being laid off because of COVID-19 and because their businesses have been asked--or in some cases, directed--to close. And when that happens, we feel an obligation to try to at least allow them the opportunity to make it through the next few months, to get ready for the recovery that we are convinced can happen if we properly manage the emergency before us. I would like to just go through them briefly so that after an entire day of discussion, there is at least an understanding of what is in the bill today just for men and women who are hurting today. On a per-person basis, we are offering about $250 billion in additional resources. For a child, there is $500 for every child in a family, but that is on top of $1,200 for a mother and a father. What we are suggesting with that is, it doesn't mean that you have to have made that much. This is a refundable tax credit, and it is available to individuals regardless of if they even made that much or paid taxes on that in the last couple of years. This is really important because this is an immediate, upfront payment from the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, back to individuals. And the sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner those dollars can get out to people who, right now, are hurting, and they need this additional assistance at this time, not a month and a half or 2 months from now, but as soon as we can get it to them. Additionally, we have an unemployment proposal that increases the amount of money that goes into the unemployment funds in the amount of about $250 billion as well. How does that break out and what does that mean to an individual? If an individual is on unemployment today, what we are offering, besides what they are getting from the State is, first of all, first dollar coverage with no 1-week wait period. Second of all, we are adding an additional $600 per week--per week--for the first 9 weeks that they are eligible for. Now, that doesn't mean that unemployment stops at that point, but there is $600 additional during that 9-week period of time. This is very important for individuals who have no place else to go and have already been laid off of work because we have told those businesses that they have to shut down. Another piece of this product right now I think is an excellent piece, one that not only offers emotional support for men and women who are struggling, but it also shares through small businesses an amount-- about $350 billion--that goes to small businesses, businesses that are under--that are under--500 employees in size. When we define an employee, we are talking about an FTE or full-time equivalent of 40 hours. So if you have two half-times, you have one FTE. But what we have offered to small businesses in this is a very simple loan and loan forgiveness program for which they can go down to their local lender and apply. The local lender is the person who puts the papers together and so forth, but what it allows them to do is to go down and say: Look, I have just been told that my business is shut down. I don't want to lose my employees. What they can do is borrow the money to continue to pay the payroll and benefits for those individuals they would be laying off otherwise. And if they keep them on for a period of up to 8 weeks, we forgive the loan. It becomes a grant. But the reason for that is if we don't do that, those same individuals are going to be on the unemployment rolls, so why make them go through that emotional distress and why have them in such a position that they may not get the benefits back that the small business is offering today. We have done something else as well. We have said for that small business owner: We know many of you have mortgages; you have ongoing payments. So we will also let you include your mortgage payments, as well, and your ongoing rent, lights, and so forth. And if you keep open, you can also apply to have that part forgiven, as well, up to a grand total of $10 million per business. Why? Because we want stability in the marketplace, and we think that is what a lot of employees want. We would like to have that out this week. That is one of the reasons you see the frustrations and the irritation on the Republican side of the aisle here--because we really thought we were negotiating on these items in good faith with Members of the other side in working groups that had both included in such a fashion that we could move through this fairly quickly. In fact, I think you have heard Members on the other side of the aisle talk about the fact that they are not disagreeing with those things. There is another part too. There are the larger businesses, over 500 in size. When we have businesses that are bigger than 500 in size, what we have said is: Look, we are not going to give you a grant program. We are not going to be in the position of bailing you out. But what we do want to do is to make liquidity and loans available to you--loans that you can afford. We are going to ask for some conditions on that, yes, but the idea here is to allow them to survive and to be ready to go back into business. This seems to be the place where we have the most dissension and disagreement between the two parties because, while we are proposing that they can't use this to buy stock back, I think some of our Democratic colleagues thought we had to strengthen it. Fine. That shouldn't take 2 days to work out. They think we should have some more guidelines. Fine. But that shouldn't take 2 days to work out. The goal here is to keep as many people employed and to keep those businesses operational so that as we move through this health emergency, those businesses continue to do business in the future. There is a larger portion in this that we also talk about, which is for the airlines and so forth. We have a frustration, as well, with our Democratic colleagues because of some of the suggestions that have been made. We don't think they should have to remake their board of directors if they are going to get a loan. We think the airlines are critical--not just to save the airlines but because business relies on airlines and people rely on airlines now to get from one place to another throughout the United States. We have also included about $17 billion to take care of those separate industries on which we have national defense-specific issues. We think this has been well thought out. It doesn't mean that there isn't room for more negotiations, but time is of the essence. As we sit here this evening, more people will die; more people will get sick; more men and women will find themselves wondering where they are going to get their next paycheck. Every single day matters. So our request to the Members on the other side of the aisle, who have twice now said ``No, we don't want to take the first procedural step to get onto the bill,'' what we say is: Look, you have to push hard on your leadership to come to a consensus. And, please, this is emergency legislation. This should not be a Christmas tree. It should not be a piece of legislation that, since it needs to pass, we can now put a wish list of other things that one party or the other has been trying to get into law but does not have consensus on. This is where the areas of contention are this evening. So to the men and women who are out there and are concerned, I can share with you that I think we have a very good plan, one that will come close to $1.9 trillion dollars in terms of what we are offering. But at the same time, it needs to get out as quickly as possible, and it has to be as simple as possible for those men and women to be able to apply for in an unemployment line or the businesses to apply through a local bank so that they can keep people employed or for that larger business to understand that liquidity is available to get them through a very difficult time, but it is not going to be a grant; it is going to be a loan. Finally, there is an area which is important that perhaps can have some additional thought put into it, and that is that not just the hospitals at the local level need our support and our assistance right now because they can't do this by themselves, but we are going to find that State after State is going to be knocking on our door, saying: You shut down businesses in our State. You have told us that we need to in order to quell this emergency, but in doing so, the revenues that were generated because of those business activities we don't have. So you are going to find State revenues that are down significantly, and they are going to be coming in, and they are going to be visiting. I am convinced that between this package and perhaps the next package we have to also recognize the impact to State governments that provide so many of the services that men and women rely on on a daily basis. So I would like to thank you for your time, Mr. President. I think this is important, and I think the message that we have to have as responsible individuals, Members of this body in which today we truly did have debate and discussion on the floor--we have to finish this, and we have to do it in such a fashion that it reaches men and women who are counting on us as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Wednesday, March 18; further that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceeding be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, following leader remarks, 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. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I would like to remember the life of Dick Ambrosius. Mr. Ambrosius passed away on January 24, 2020, at the age of 73. Dick Ambrosius was born in Huron, SD, and graduated from Huron High School in 1964. He attended the University of South Dakota, USD, in Vermillion, SD, where he earned a master's degree. He was actively involved in the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity and the Reserve Officer Training Corps during his time at USD and continued to advocate for the value of Greek life and the importance of military service throughout his career. Following his college graduation in 1968, he was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army, where he ultimately attained the rank of captain prior to his separation from service. He served in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals. In life, Mr. Ambrosius was a tireless advocate for senior citizens and disabled veterans. He served as executive director for Warriors Never Give Up, a nonprofit organization that provides outdoor adventures for disabled veterans. I commend Mr. Ambrosius for his devotion to his community, disabled veterans, and seniors. I offer my sincerest condolences to his family and friends, including his wife Karen, daughter Jennifer, sons Matt and Jacob, sister Nancy, and numerous grandchildren.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today, I rise to discuss the decision on whether to remove the President from office based on the Articles of Impeachment sent to us by the House of Representatives. Our Founding Fathers included impeachment--effectively overturning the will of the American electorate--to be used only as a last resort. They trusted the Senate, requiring more solemn judgment than their counterparts in the House, to decide whether an allegation by the House has the substantiality to require removal from office. According to ``Commentaries on the Constitution'' by Joseph Story, the Framers saw the Senate as a tribunal ``removed from popular power and passions . . . and from the more dangerous influence of mere party spirit,'' guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' This impeachment process, driven by partisan desire, was rushed and lacked any proper form and substance. This is an attempt by the House to undo the results of the 2016 election and impact the 2020 election. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' During the debates at the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others relied heavily on Sir William Blackstone's work, ``Commentaries on the Law of England,'' which Madison described as ``a book which is in every man's hand.'' Within his work, Blackstone discussed ``high misdemeanors,'' which included many crimes against the King and government, including maladministration. According to Blackstone, maladministration applied to high officers in public trust and employment and was punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment. It is from this understanding that the Framers selected ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for the impeachment clause in our Constitution. The term ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' had a limited and technical meaning that was well known to the Framers. It was a term of art. As early as 14th century England, high crimes and misdemeanors were a category of political crimes against the State and were tried in parliamentary impeachments. It should be understood that the word ``high'' in high crimes and misdemeanors is a modifying adjective and also applies to the word ``misdemeanors.'' ``High misdemeanors'' was applied in impeachment proceedings conducted by Parliament long before there was such a crime as a misdemeanor as we know it today. Misdemeanors alone referred to criminal sanctions for private wrongs. High crimes and misdemeanors were charged against officers of the ``highest rank and favor with the crown'' or who were in ``judicial or executive offices'' and, because of their stations, were unindictable by ordinary rules of justice. For those individuals who were not indictable by the ordinary rules of justice, the Founding Fathers, in their subtle brilliance, sought to have something akin to crimes and misdemeanors that allowed them to impeach for great and dangerous crimes committed against the State. As we know, the Founding Fathers specifically adopted the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The emphasis on high misdemeanors is important in this context because the House of Representatives has not alleged treason, and they have not alleged bribery. Their case rests on whether the articles charged are the types of high crimes and high misdemeanors intended by our Framers. In defining high misdemeanors, Blackstone stated that ``the first and principal is the mal-administration of such high officers.'' However, the Founding Fathers specifically chose not to include maladministration as a basis for impeachment. When George Mason and James Madison debated the specific language of the impeachment clause, Mason stated: Why is the provision restrained to treason and bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. Mason then moved to add after bribery, ``or maladministration,'' to which Madison replied and I quote: ``So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'' The Framers knew what they were adopting when they chose ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They explicitly rejected maladministration and other vague terms in favor of more specific allegations, which had a limited and technical meaning. In the first Article of Impeachment before the Senate, the question is whether abuse of power as a charge on its own is an impeachable offense. The answer is no. Abuse of power does not have a limited meaning and is as vague as maladministration. The Framers actually discussed abuse of power and rejected it. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Iredell, one of the first Supreme Court Justices, stated: No power of any kind or degree can be given but what may be abused; we have, therefore, only to consider whether any particular power is absolutely necessary. If it be, the power must be given, and we must run the risk of abuse. In the first Article of Impeachment, the House has claimed that the abuse of power is within the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe the Founding Fathers saw abuse of power as an inherent risk within the delegation of that authority. The Framers did not intend impeachment proceedings to be brought every time an abuse of power is alleged. In the second Article of Impeachment, the House alleges the President obstructed Congress when he refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. The President rejected the legitimacy of those subpoenas. The House then failed to pursue redress through the courts, rejecting the court's rightful role in settling disputes between the two branches of government. The separation of powers doctrine recognized executive privilege as a lawful exercise for the President to protect both Presidential and deliberative process communications. The House showed a deliberate disregard for the proper role of the judicial branch and now expects the Senate to gather evidence after they have already impeached. Alleging an obstruction of Congress charge before the House exhausted its remedy for judicial relief would change the balance of power between our co-equal branches of government and ignore the rightful place the courts hold in arbitrating differences between the executive and legislative branches. No branch of government is above the Constitution. We are obligated under oath of office to support and defend it. Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution state ``the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,'' and ``[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' The Framers intentionally separated these authorities. The Senate does not have the authority to impeach; however, the Senate does have the authority to judge the sufficiency of articles presented to it. The Senate, as a trier of facts, should not overstep its role. It is the House's responsibility to bring the evidence to make their case, not simply make an allegation. This does not mean that the Senate cannot call witnesses, but it most certainly should not be the Senate's obligation to do so because the House failed to do so in the first place. Upon the founding of the Senate, James Madison explained that the Senate would be a ``necessary fence'' against the ``fickleness and passion'' that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and Members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson that the Framers had created the Senate to ``cool'' House legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. For impeachment, there can be no difference. When the House is ignited by partisan passions, eager to reach a desired result, the Senate must be cool and firm in its heightened review. In recognizing the haste and half-hearted attempt by our colleagues in the House, the Senate must also recognize these Articles of Impeachment to be wholly insufficient and not warranting a removal from office. Let this decision lie in its rightful place, with the electorate. The Senate has conducted a fair, impartial trial. We did our due diligence and fulfilled our constitutional duty. Now it is time to bring this process to a close and get on with the business of the American people who sent us here. I will vote against the Articles of Impeachment, in keeping with the constitutional intent our Framers expected. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that citations to my remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Caden Darrow, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Caden is a graduate of Rapid City Central High School in Rapid City, SD. He is currently pursuing bachelor of science in political science at Arizona State University. Caden is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Caden for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Carter Dykstra, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Carter is a graduate of Platte High School in Platte, SD, and South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD. He is currently pursuing his master of business administration degree through the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, SD. Carter is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Carter 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, it is my pleasure to name Valley Queen Cheese Factory of Milbank, SD as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Valley Queen Cheese is a prime example of the important role small businesses play in their local economies and communities. In 1929, Alfred Nef and Alfred Gonzenbach decided Milbank, SD was the perfect home for their business and founded Valley Queen Cheese. Four generations later, Valley Queen remains a family-run operation and is still owned by the Nef and Gonzenbach families. Today, it operates less than half a mile from the original location. It is a recognized leader in the South Dakota business community and the greater dairy industry. Since 2017, Doug Wilke has served as CEO of Valley Queen. With guidance from the board of directors, he currently oversees the largest cheese plant in South Dakota and the largest employer in Milbank. More than 90 percent of all milk Valley Queen uses comes from South Dakota cows, and they make a conscious effort to continue South Dakota's leadership in this important industry. Thanks to a recent expansion, Valley Queen now has the capacity to produce 200 million pounds of cheese from 2 billion pounds of milk each year. Their cheese can be found in most local grocery stores, as it is sold to some of the best-known food brands in the world. To meet the growing demand, Valley Queen recently invested in a business expansion project that increased the factory's output by twenty-five percent. Valley Queen is an active leader in the Milbank community, where it has grown to employ 300 people. In 2017, the Valley Queen Charitable Foundation was established to advance positive change by supporting local organizations and initiatives. In its first 3 years as a nonprofit, the foundation has contributed more than $900,000 to local charities that have a community, educational, or humanitarian focus. Since 1990, Valley Queen has awarded high school and college students over $300,000 in scholarships. In addition to the business's own philanthropy, Valley Queen makes an annual contribution to the Milbank Community Foundation, which seeks to improve the quality of life of residents in the community. Valley Queen has been recognized for their continuous improvement and exceptional process control through several awards. Earlier this year, Valley Queen won two awards and received near-perfect marks at the U.S. Championship Cheese Contest for their reduced fat cheddar and Monterey Jack jalapeno cheeses. Valley Queen's sustained efforts toward improved research and development does not go unnoticed by the industry. Valley Queen is an excellent example of how small businesses fit the shared values and ideals of their community and give back in a multitude of ways. I am proud to highlight Valley Queen and its team for their integral social and economic contributions to South Dakota. Although many years removed from being a startup company, Valley Queen remains committed to the legacy of its founders. Furthermore, Milbank, South Dakota continues to serve as the perfect home for this thriving business. Congratulations again to the entire team at Valley Queen Cheese Factory for being named Senate Small Business of the Week.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I join my fellow Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee chairs in expressing my serious concerns with the possibility that congress might not pass a National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for fiscal year 2020. For more than five decades, the NDAA has been signed into law with bipartisan support. We had our differences, but if we fail to pass the NDAA this year, what kind of message does that send to the men and women who, in many cases, are risking their lives for our national security? Further, they will receive this message at a time of heightened strategic competition with China and Russia and a continued need to support our allies and partners. Meanwhile, we must continue to rebuild the readiness of our Armed Forces and take care of our troops and their families. With regard to rebuilding our readiness, I remember the recent and significant dip in the readiness of our B-1B bomber fleet at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. While the Air Force has reversed that trend, it remains an example of the wear and tear on our forces after 18 years of war. Now is not the time to go backward by failing, for the first time in 58 years, to pass a National Defense Authorization Act. NDAA is must-pass legislation, as it has been every year for over half a century. That is why Chairman Inhofe introduced his ``skinny'' NDAA. The NDAA is typically bipartisan, and it should stay that way. I am hopeful we will find a final agreement. This is about more than the NDAA. It is also about Defense appropriations. In that regard, I will not vote for another continuing resolution with its distinctive impact on our national security. As chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned about what failure to enact NDAA 2020 would mean for our cybersecurity. Some vital cybersecurity measures in the NDAA passed by the Senate include the following: critical funding for United Stated Cyber Command, CYBERCOM, infrastructure development. In a sense, CYBERCOM is at war every day, operating in our enemies' backyards to negate or at least reduce their ability to attack the United States. It is not a coincidence that there was no successful interference in our 2018 mid-term elections. We can thank the men and women of CYBERCOM for that. Now is not the time to deny them what they need to boost their capabilities. Our adversaries and enemies will surely boost theirs; development of a consistent, comprehensive framework to enhance the cybersecurity of the U.S. defense industrial base after disastrous theft of critical defense information relating to development of an important new weapon system. I am concerned there may be other ongoing such instances of which we are not even aware; a consortium of universities, to include Dakota State University in Madison, SD, to advise and assist the Secretary of Defense on cybersecurity matters; authorization for the armed services to use operation and maintenance funds for the rapid creation testing, fielding, and operation of new cyber capabilities; and completion of the work of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission charged with evaluating divergent approaches to defending the United States in cyberspace and driving consensus toward a comprehensive strategy. These are just some of the cybersecurity related measures that will have to wait another year, unless Congress passes NDAA 2020. When added to the concerns noted by my fellow chairs, it should be clear to all that now is the time to put aside partisan obstructionism and enact this must-pass legislation.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Deb Bowman. There is a difference between public servants and bureaucrats, and we have known or dealt with both. Our office spends an incredible amount of time and energy helping constituents bust through the Federal bureaucracy, and unfortunately, we often bump heads with federal bureaucrats. It is time-consuming and aggravating for constituents. After experiences like these, we unfortunately have a tendency to stereotype all government employees in that manner. Thankfully, that is not always the case. There are examples of legitimate public servants, often behind the scenes, who truly seek to make the lives of our citizens better. One of those special individuals is Deb Bowman. Deb Bowman was the truest, most sincere--and brutally honest--public servant I have had the honor of knowing. For those of us who knew Deb, especially her family--her husband Randy, her children Brooke and Jessamine, and her grandkids--our hearts ache. At just 65 years old, Deb passed away on September 17, 2019, after a fairly recent lung cancer diagnosis. Years earlier, Deb became a kidney transplant recipient, and I believe that experience and the other hardships in her life shaped her view of public service. Deb was a loyal friend who worked with me while I served as Governor. She was a tremendous asset on my 2002 transition team, as a senior adviser and cabinet secretary. Prior to that, Deb was an adviser to Governors Mickelson and Janklow and she went on to serve Governor Daugaard before her retirement in 2014. It is not hard to understand how four Governors saw the same value and passion in Deb. It is a testament to the legacy she has left. Deb was a fierce conversationalist. Her ability to identify with those less fortunate was her signature quality. She was able to put a ``face'' on the policy decisions that were made and reminded Governors, legislators, and State employees that the monetary and policy decisions we make impact real people and families. She was a tough and relentless advocate for those less fortunate. And she inspired understanding about the role society and State government played when it came to children, the poor, and the elderly. Often, Deb would be outright arguing a position with me, and she would say, ``Oh now come on Governor, that's `bullcrap', have you considered . . . .'' Needless to say, Deb won those debates multiple times, and our State is better off for it. She understood that her value was not mimicking the opinions being expressed around the table. She brought compassion to her advocacy, and I believe it made me a better Governor. Her service was not without sacrifice. On top of time away from her family and the strain upon her health, her empathy was so deep and pure that she carried the weight of the vulnerable through long hours and personal anguish. Yet despite many times being dismissed as the lone, unpopular voice, she would take a drive around the capitol, think over her argument, and show up with a new line of reasoning. She was persistent. When I think of the rare public servant like Deb, I am reminded of Matthew 23:11: ``The greatest among you must be a servant.'' Deb was a phenomenal public servant, for all the right reasons. Deb could have been the CEO of any organization and made a bunch more money. She was intelligent, a hard worker, a professional, a leader. She chose public service, and in doing so, she was a friend, to me and to many. Thank you, Deb, for showing all of us what a true public servant looks like.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Tim Morgan, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Tim is a graduate of Mitchell High School in Mitchell, SD. Currently, he is attending South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, where he studies political science and journalism. Tim is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tim for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Anneliese Taggart, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Anneliese is a graduate of Vermillion High School in Vermillion, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, AL, where she studies political science and communications studies. Anneliese is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience and has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Anneliese for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today I recognize Mykaylan Burner, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Mykaylan is a graduate of Dakota Valley High School in North Sioux City, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, where she studies political science and Spanish. Mykaylan is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience and has been a true asset to the office. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mykaylan 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 wish to honor Wendell Hanson, as he celebrates his centennial birthday this year. Wendell was born on August 4, 1919, in Sioux Falls, SD. Wendell Hanson graduated from Washington High School in Sioux Falls. He attended 1 year of college at Augustana College in Sioux Falls before transferring to the University of Texas, where he was President of Alpha Phi Omega. Wendell enlisted in Active Duty in the Army Air Force on September 5, 1941, and served in World War II as a B-25 combat pilot in low-altitude attack missions from bases in China and India. He was flight leader under General C. L. Chennault's 14th Air Force Flying Tigers. Among the medals he was awarded are the Distinguished Flying Cross for distinguishing himself by heroism and extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, the Air Medal with oakleaf cluster, three Bronze Stars, and China's Liberation Medal. After his tour of duty in the war overseas, he taught instructor pilots how to teach combat air tactics to pilots. He served in the Air Force Reserve and retired in 1964 as a lieutenant colonel. On August 11, 1945, Wendell married Helen A. Brumbaugh at First United Methodist Church in Sioux Falls. Wendell met Helen when she was a teacher at Vermillion High School. In January of 1945, he flew to Sioux Falls from Texas and drove his father's car to Vermillion to recruit potential Air Force pilots. Prior to speaking with students, he spoke with Helen for a few minutes in a school hallway. A month later, without further communication, Wendell sent a letter to Helen asking her to marry him. Helen replied, ``I do not even know you well enough to say no.'' After many months of letters, Helen said, ``Yes.'' They lived near Waco, TX, while Wendell taught instructor pilots at Lackland Air Force Base, then moved to Ann Arbor, MI, for 2 years before finally returning to Sioux Falls. Wendell and Helen had five children, Doug, Gail, Gary, Allen, and Martha, as well as eight grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren. As a dedicated public servant, Wendell served in the South Dakota Senate from 1977-78 and from 1981-1982. In his spare time, he enjoys golf, international travel, pheasant hunting, fishing, and camping. He was an active member of Hope Lutheran Church, where he served as President of the congregation and Sunday school teacher. He was also a member of Peace Lutheran Church and currently attends Abiding Savior Lutheran. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Wendell Hanson for his service to our country and wish him a very happy 100th birthday, good health, and prosperity.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Lt. Gen. Steve Basham, who recently departed his position as Director of Air Force Legislative Liaison and assumes his new duties as Deputy Commander of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces in Africa. As the Director of Legislative Affairs of the Air Force, Lieutenant General Basham worked directly with the Senate and the House of Representatives on all aspects of organizing, training, and equipping our airmen to project global combat power abroad. Throughout this time, then-Major General Basham prepared the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, as well as other senior Air Force leaders, for engagements on Capitol Hill, to include extensive testimony before congressional committees. A product of some of these strategic engagements was the decision to select Ellsworth Air Force Base as the first unit to host the B-21 Raider bomber, a strategic decision that I personally thank the Secretary of the Air Force for making. I also thank Lieutenant General Basham for his steadfast efforts in the deliberate decision-making process. In 1989, following his graduation from Western Kentucky University, Lieutenant General Basham was commissioned through Air Force Officer Training School and achieved his flying wings. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has attained a command pilot rating with more than 3,400 flying hours in the T-37, T-38, B-1, B-2, and B-52 aircraft. He holds the honor of being one of the first four pilots to fly the B-2 stealth bomber in combat. Throughout his career, Lieutenant General Basham has held numerous other positions of strategic importance, including Deputy Director of Requirements for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and as the Director of Strategy, Plans, and Programs for Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. Of course, none of this could be done without the support of his wife Angie and their two daughters, Lauren and Sarah. On behalf of the U.S. Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend our deepest appreciation to Lt. Gen. Steven L. Basham and his family for their dedicated service to the Air Force and to our Nation. We wish them all the best as they move on to his next assignment and continue working to keep our Nation and our allies safe from potential Russian aggression in Europe, as well as violent extremists in Africa. There is no question that the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the United States will continue to benefit greatly from Lieutenant General Basham's outstanding leadership. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today I would like to remember the life of retired U.S. Army National Guard SSG Jordy James Soesbe. Staff Sergeant Soesbe passed away on May 20, 2019, at the age of 44. Jordy Soesbe was born in Burke, SD, and raised on his family's farm and ranch in Gregory, SD. Soesbe spent more than 20 years in the U.S. Army and Army National Guard, retiring in 2017 at the rank of staff sergeant in the National Guard. He completed two tours of duty in Afghanistan, serving as a gunner on a Humvee, sniper, and prison guard. He served with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division and 25th Infantry Division and the South Dakota National Guard's 235th Military Police Company. During his time in the military, he earned numerous commendations and medals, including the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' Device and 10-year Hourglass Device, Army Commendation Medal, and four Army Achievement Medals. Aside from his career in the military, he also served as a reserve sheriff's deputy with the Meade County Sheriff's Office. In his spare time, he was an avid pheasant and deer hunter. He also enjoyed spending time at his local shooting range. Staff Sergeant Soesbe was not only a hero in life, but also a hero in death. As an organ donor, he saved at least three lives. I commend this hero for his service, both in life and death, and offer my sincerest condolences to his family and friends. He is survived by his mother Virginia; brother Brett; daughters Alexandra, McKenna, and Alyssa; and numerous nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins, and in-laws.

Mr. ROUNDS

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