Mike Rounds

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that we as a committee have once again come together in a bipartisan fashion to advance the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which I believe is a vital piece of legislation for our national security. I thank the chairmen and ranking members in both the House and Senate for their leadership--Senator Inhofe--and the Members on both sides of the aisle who have continued to work together on this very important Defense bill. Congress as an institution continues to come together each year to show our troops and their families that they have our full support. The Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility is to provide for the defense of our Nation. This year's NDAA, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, honors our chairman, who has dedicated his life to serving our country. Few people are more passionate about our troops and our military readiness than Chairman McCain, and the courage he has exhibited during his years of service and in his current battle has inspired all of us. I am pleased we were able to put together legislation bearing his name that builds on last year's efforts to provide adequate tools so our forces can fully rebuild our military and adequately address the challenges they face. The most important capability we have is our people, the men and women in uniform who defend our Nation and the families who give them the strength to do so. That is why I am pleased that this year's NDAA includes a 2.6-percent pay raise for our troops. We are also fortunate that the leader of our Armed Forces, Defense Secretary James Mattis, has provided us with a national defense strategy that clearly articulates the current and emerging threats we as a nation are facing. This strategy focuses on the central challenge facing our Nation: the reemergence of long-term strategic competition with our near-peer competitors, such as Russia and China. It is our duty to provide Secretary Mattis and all of our troops with the tools they need to execute this strategy. The world is more dangerous than at any time since the Cold War era. China and Russia are both strategic competitors. Great uncertainty still remains on the Korean Peninsula. Iran continues to threaten Middle Eastern stability. Our forces remain engaged in combat in Afghanistan and are conducting counterterrorism in multiple areas of operation. Our superiority in the maritime, air, ground, space, and cyber domains--once taken for granted--is constantly challenged by our strategic and regional competitors. Even more concerning, the threat of sequestration and repeated continuing resolutions has prevented our troops from being fully equipped to prepare and defend against these threats. As a result, modernization, readiness, and sustainment have all suffered. It is our duty to provide funding stability and avoid arbitrary budget caps that constrain defense spending below that which is required to protect our Nation. Failure to provide adequate, stable funding disrupts planning, impacts responsible obligation of critical funding resources, degrades readiness, and inhibits modernization, and there have been disturbing real-world consequences. The high operational demand with an insufficient fleet, overburdened maintenance infrastructure, and an erosion of training all were factors in a string of recent Navy surface fleet incidents. The Marine Corps and Air Force have had their own serious readiness issues with the F-18 and the B-1 fleets, which experienced multiple class-A accidents, some of which caused the loss of life. The shortage of pilots in every service is a strategic readiness concern that must be addressed. Our sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines deserve the very best in training and equipment. This year's NDAA does that by providing a total of $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 for national defense. Voting for this vital legislation is not--I repeat: not--an act of budget-busting. In fact, in 2010 we spent $714 billion--just $2 billion less than this year--on national defense, but a dollar went a lot further back then. Adjusted for inflation, this bill actually authorizes more than $110 billion less than in 2010 buying power. We are slowly digging ourselves out of a hole that has hollowed our Armed Forces. The real budget-busting is being done with mandatory spending, and we don't even vote on mandatory spending. Since the Cold War, the stakes for failing to take decisive action have never been higher. This legislation will enable our Armed Forces to continue taking necessary steps to rebuild and restore our national security. As an example, in the Navy--this year's NDAA builds on last year's bill to improve ship and aviation readiness and the infrastructure necessary to support the fleet, which directly addresses a significant problem the Armed Services Committee has examined in multiple hearings this year. Significantly, it improves the Navy's capacity to execute maintenance in naval shipyards by continuing to grow the workforce while investing in shipyard infrastructure, including facilities, equipment, and information technology. This increase in workforce will help the Navy to meet scheduled ship maintenance, support additional ships, and reduce the backlog that has accumulated from over a decade of increased operational tempo. Similar plans to restore readiness will be executed across the force so long as we honor our commitment to invest in a complete life cycle acquisition system. As chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that the NDAA includes important provisions that take steps to address the serious cyber threat our Nation faces. This includes providing the Secretary of Defense with the authority to conduct military operations in cyber space, developing a program to establish cyber institutes at educational institutions, and investing in cyber programs in the defense industrial base. These are important steps we can take to defend the Nation in the cyber domain. I am also glad that the bill we are considering today includes strategic measures that I offered to improve officer personnel management and increase the capabilities of our training ranges throughout the Department of Defense to better support the objectives outlined in the national defense strategy. Today, a number of our personnel and training systems are outdated and fail to provide our forces with the tools they need on the modern battlefield. This bill changes that. While we champion this year's bill, we must also extend our view beyond fiscal year 2019. We must be prepared for the future while reacting to the present, especially as it relates to funding. For the past 3 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 arbitrary budget caps placed on our defense. These arbitrary budget caps have forced the kinds of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our Armed Forces. We must also avoid the false choice of paying for readiness while assuming risk for modernization or vice-versa. We cannot let the pursuit of the perfect modernization solution prevent us from implementing mature technologies--to address short-term capability gaps--now, today. The bill we are considering today avoids these choices. In closing, I thank Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Senator Inhofe, and my other Armed Services Committee colleagues and everyone on staff for their work on this year's NDAA. I look forward to getting this bill to the President's desk in a timely manner as we continue our strong tradition of coming together on a bipartisan basis to support our troops and their families so that they can continue to keep us safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate, and I wish this debate would go on, on a regular basis, in the U.S. Senate. I think it is healthy. I wish there were a process in place today so that every single amendment brought up could have this type of discussion and debate and those proposals could actually be amended on the floor of the Senate to improve them. I will share with you that I thought what our friend from Tennessee was trying to do was an honest attempt to bring back to Congress section 1 or article I responsibilities that we have, over a period of years, allowed to be delegated to the executive branch. I also shared with the Senator that while the debate was a very healthy one, I felt at this stage of the game that it probably would not, in its current form, be appropriate and that the President was already acting on these tariffs. I thought that I probably could not support his bill, but I thought he should have an opportunity in this process to have the debate. Let me now share that what the chairman--or the ranking member, who is acting as the chairman in this particular case--is doing is protecting the National Defense Authorization Act and making it as viable as possible in the long term to survive in both the House and the Senate. For those who are wondering what we are talking about in a nebulous sort of way, what Senator Corker had tried to do was to have a debate about whether the tariffs that the President had proposed for national defense purposes under a 1962 law were appropriately determined to be a national security threat. That was the language Congress had delivered to the President. The President has made his choice, and there are a number of Members who feel that while they support the President, they think he has overstepped with regard to whether they were actually of national security importance. Senator Corker wanted to have that discussion, and I agreed he should be able to have that discussion. However, I had shared with him that I thought it needed to be in different order and that he was making it too tough for the executive branch to succeed with the numbers he had proposed. He wanted a 60-vote margin for the Senate to proceed. That is the way, though, he was going to introduce it. I was prepared to vote on it and, hopefully, win in an honest debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate with those arguments, but in doing so, I also learned, as the chairman has shared, that the House had sent over a bill to us. We were on the House bill. In order to get, in this particular case, a vote on this particular topic, the Senator from Tennessee, in a very innovative way and one that normally would be used earlier in the process where everyone had the opportunity to recognize it, would have to change the underlying bill. In changing the underlying bill, it would have to go back to the House, and they would have to revote on the bill once again. Doing so puts this very important bill in jeopardy. As a Member who has been here only for 3 years, I understand that is not always the easiest thing do. I wish to thank our Chairman for making what is a very hard decision and stepping up to protect the National Defense Authorization Act because of everything else that is in it, while at the same time I will commit the same as the chairman has committed, in this particular case, to Senator Corker that his item of discussion, which is the appropriate use of tariffs for national defense purposes, is a healthy debate to have, and it should be had in such a fashion that amendments could be offered on the floor of the Senate, and a very straightforward debate could then determine the fate of that legislation on its own and not in connection with the NDAA. For that purpose, I simply wish to say that what I think the American people have seen here today is, No. 1, our commitment to making certain that the National Defense Authorization Act moves forward because it is critical every single year that we improve our ability to defend our country, while at the same time making a very hard decision, which the chairman did today, to suggest that even though we all want to have a debate on this particular issue, unfortunately, this bill is not the place to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the legislation before us, known as the VA MISSION Act of 2018--a significant change for the healthcare delivery system at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA MISSION Act passed the House of Representatives last week and is scheduled to be voted on in the Senate in the coming days. The bill is a result of months of negotiations and discussions between stakeholders, the administration, and the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, of which I am a member. While I appreciate the hard work of those involved, unfortunately, the final legislation is not something that I am able to support. Before I get into my concerns about the bill and what I believe to be its fatal flaws, I want to acknowledge that there is a host of good provisions in here that I do support. The one on the forefront of many minds is the caregivers program expansion. The caregivers program, a program that gives support and assistance to certain veterans so they can receive home healthcare by a family member, has always been limited to post-9/11 veterans. However, there are many pre-9/11 veterans' family members who do the same work as a caregiver recipient but are not compensated for that work. This program is more cost effective over the long term than an alternative long-term care accommodation. It is due time for this expansion to occur for all families. I also support section 101, paragraph (a), which expands extended care services, such as nursing home care, through the community care program. It is similar to a bill I introduced with the senior Senator from North Dakota, the Veterans Access to Long Term Care and Health Services Act. This provision will allow long-term care services to more easily work with the VA in serving veterans. Further, section 101, paragraph (k) of the VA MISSION Act establishes in law that a veteran shall not pay a greater amount for receiving care or services outside of the VA, compared to receiving care at a VA facility. It is similar to the Veterans Equal Cost for Care Act, which I introduced in Congress last year. This section makes certain that veterans will know that VA policy will not change in this regard and that the VA will not place additional financial barriers for veterans to access care outside of the VA at a private provider in an effort to incentivize in-house VA care. Last, section 101, paragraph (d)(1)(D) of this bill, along with section 104, requires the VA to develop appropriate access standards when seeking healthcare. However, I remain concerned that the VA will not implement it properly. If the VA implements access standards similar to TRICARE, which is the health program at the Department of Defense, then, these sections could be good for veterans. Let me get into my concerns with the bill. This bill makes significant changes to the 40-mile rule under the Choice Program, and I am concerned that it puts our rural veterans in jeopardy. The Choice Act, which Congress passed in 2014, before I took office, allowed all veterans who live 40 or more miles from a VA facility to receive care at a local, private hospital or clinic. Under the VA MISSION Act, this provision will end for all veterans except those in the top five rural States after 2 years. When the Choice Act was first enacted, giving rural veterans the option to receive care in their communities, rather than at a VA facility, they overwhelmingly chose to stay close to home and receive private care. They voted with their feet. Because of the law, many are getting better local, private care. I believe veterans who use this type of eligibility successfully today ought to be able to use this program in the future, no matter which State he or she is from. In fact, these concerns were addressed when the original legislation was crafted in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and all veterans who use the Choice Program today were grandfathered into being able to use the 40-mile rule in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the proposal agreed to in committee is not the one in front of us today. I understand that the number crunchers did the math and concluded that the bill discussed in committee was too expensive and they didn't want to pay this much for the care of our veterans. So the provision I offered was cut down significantly to be limited to the top five rural States, including my own State of South Dakota. While South Dakota was fortunate to be a part of the top five States, this country has many rural States and many rural veterans who rely on the Choice Program's 40-mile eligibility to get their healthcare. There are roughly 750,000 eligible 40-mile veterans across the United States. Of this portion, a little less than half, or 330,000 veterans, have used this eligibility to receive healthcare. In just 2 years, many of these veterans will no longer be eligible to receive care outside the VA system based on the 40-mile rule alone, as they do today. Instead, more veterans will have to work through more gatekeepers and review processes to get their community care request granted, if it is granted at all. Just as important is the way in which 40-mile-eligible veterans receive community care. Currently, when a rural, 40-mile veteran wants community care, they get community care. There are little, if any, barriers to access community care today. The VA can't decide for the veteran where he or she should get the care. The veteran is in total control of their care. There are no reviews, gatekeepers, or consultations. The veteran just goes. Under the VA MISSION Act, as it stands today, a VA clinician acts as a gatekeeper for the veteran. Section 101, paragraph (d)(2) states that a VA employee must consider certain criteria, some of which are peculiar to a rural veteran, when consulting with a veteran on where the veteran should go for healthcare. ``Consider'' is not a very tough or obligatory word, and it leaves a lot of leeway for our Washington bureaucrats to write rules in a way that may not put the care of our veterans above all else. My concern here is that when this bill is signed into law, rules are going to start to be written, and the number crunchers are going to influence every rule to meet the bare minimum of the required language. Just in case anyone is interested in an example, let me briefly remind the Chamber that the original Choice Act intended to provide community care to veterans who live 40 miles or more from a VA facility. How was that rule initially written? Community care was based on 40 miles as the crow flies. That is right--as the crow flies. It took intense pressure from the veterans organizations and Congress to amend that rule to be based on driving distance, or better known as the way almost every veteran travels to a VA facility. Why was that rule written to determine community care as the crow flies? Cost. Cost and nothing more. The VA wrote the rule in a manner that complied with the bare minimum requirements of the law but not with the spirit of the law. The VA did not write the rule in a way that was in line with the way a normal veteran would access community care. By writing the rule this way, the VA was able to restrict community care access to veterans to control cost. With so much ambiguity in the language as it is currently written, my fear is that the same cost-first mentality will be used once this bill is signed into law. We believe veterans should be in full control of their healthcare, not a bureaucrat. Additionally, under the Choice Act, the access standards have been clear when it comes to the 30-day rule. It states that if you wait longer than 30 days, you can use a private provider, period. Under the VA MISSION Act, the standards are fluid, and the cut-and-dry 30-day standard goes away. We know that this has been a widely used metric for veterans' eligibility to receive care outside the VA. In fact, since the Choice Act began in November of 2014, there has been roughly 1.4 million instances in which a veteran has been authorized for care outside of the VA based on the 30-day rule. Under the VA MISSION Act, there will be a new review process for veterans who request to receive care outside the VA system, based on meeting an access standard which has yet to be written. Again, if the VA implements these access standards like TRICARE, this could be good for veterans. But whether that happens is subject to rulemaking and cost constraints. Finally, I am concerned about title II of this bill, which is the asset and infrastructure review provision that paves the way for what is essentially a VA BRAC that could close out some of our most vulnerable VA facilities, particularly in rural areas. I know that my friend and colleague from West Virginia was just expressing some of the same concerns. Of particular concern is a provision that would seek to neutralize appropriations language that prohibits the VA from reducing services in the Veterans Integrated Services Network 23 unless a series of important criteria are made. For years, the VA has incrementally sought to close the Hot Springs campus in my home State of South Dakota. The VA has not conducted its due diligence in deliberating over the future of the Hot Springs campus, which provides veterans from three States and Indian Country healthcare. This is a pocket of rural America where few healthcare options exist. This VA BRAC provision puts VA facilities like the one we have in Hot Springs in jeopardy. The Hot Springs VA facility has consistently been named one of the top VA facilities in the entire United States. If we are truly putting the care of our veterans before all else, we should be propping up facilities that have a track record of delivering timely, high-quality care to our veterans. With the asset and infrastructure review provision in this bill, I worry about the future of rural VA facilities such as Hot Springs. More importantly, I am concerned about our rural veterans' access to adequate care, including mental health services, should these vital facilities be closed in the future. Some have been saying that even though the provision is in there, the VA has provided assurances that places like Hot Springs are not in jeopardy, despite the law allowing the agency to review and eventually close facilities across the Nation if it determines it is necessary. While the VA has some great employees, including its leadership, I am reluctant to consent to the BRAC process because the appropriations language requirements are what I view as due diligence by the VA before any decision is made on the closing of campuses like those in Hot Springs. In this particular case, the asset and infrastructure review language intends to neutralize that appropriations language, and I will not support that path forward. At the end of the day, all we can count on is what we have enacted through legislation, and this bill clearly allows for the VA BRAC to occur. My decision to oppose the VA MISSION Act is not one that I have made lightly. I recognize the many good provisions in this bill that would go a long way toward improving care for our Nation's veterans. I also want to recognize the hard work that went into the final package. I particularly want to thank Chairman Isakson, our Senate Veterans' Affairs chairman, for making a truly honest effort to address the ideas and concerns of all the committee members, including my concerns, which were reflected when we passed our bill out of committee earlier this year. Unfortunately, those concerns were not included in the final package. That said, the fight is not over. Even though we expect the VA MISSION Act to pass the Senate and be signed into law before Memorial Day, there will be plenty of work to do as the law is being implemented. I will continue working with my colleagues, the administration, veterans groups across the State, and other stakeholders to keep a close watch on the VA's implementation of the VA MISSION Act to make certain the agency is putting the proper care of our veterans above all else. Now, this is something that you never hear in this body, but this is an instance in which I would be happy to be wrong in my assessment. In fact, I challenge the VA to prove me wrong. We were close to having a really good bill with the VA MISSION Act by expanding the caregivers program to pre-9/11 veterans, by expanding community care to include community services, and in providing payment protections to rural vets so they will not pay a greater amount for using community care than they would for care at a VA facility, just to name a few. I would have happily voted for any of these provisions as separate measures, and I am grateful that our veterans will greatly benefit from them. I had hoped to get a place in the final bill where my concerns would be able to be fixed, but at the end of the day, my concerns outweigh the good, and I have to vote no. I have the privilege of serving on both the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I cannot tell my colleagues what an honor it is to fight every day to make sure that our servicemembers and veterans receive the tools and the care they so clearly deserve. They make incredible sacrifices so that we can be free. We have a responsibility to take care of them when their service is complete. I look forward to continuing to work to fulfill that responsibility. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Muhammad Babar Khokhar, 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. Currently, Babar is attending the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, SD, where he studies economics and psychology. 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 Babar for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Kellie Morford, 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. Kellie is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Recently, she graduated from Chadron State College in Chadron, NE, where she studied criminal justice and legal studies. Kellie is a dedicated 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 Kellie 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, each year, a proclamation is issued designating National Small Business Week, a time to recognize the important contributions America's small business owners make to our economy and our local communities. South Dakota is home to many small businesses with a strong commitment to producing quality products while serving their community. Today it is my honor to recognize the Dairy Queen of Madison, SD, which serves as a testament as to what makes South Dakota's small business owners exemplary. In 1964, the Mork family acquired the franchise license for the Madison Dairy Queen and continues to operate it successfully. Today DeLon Mork continues his family's business as the current owner of the restaurant. DeLon and his family are passionate about providing excellent service to their customers while giving back to the community that supports them. Each year, many Dairy Queens participate in Miracle Treat Day, to raise money for the Children's Miracle Network. For the past 11 years, DeLon and his team at the Madison Dairy Queen have worked to sell the most Blizzards of any Dairy Queen in North America on Miracle Treat Day. Their hard work on behalf of the Children's Miracle Network exemplifies the commitment to community service shared by the Mork family and the entire team at the Madison Dairy Queen. I commend the entire organization for their contributions to this great cause. Small businesses like DeLon's play an important role in South Dakota's economy, and with this recognition, I hope to shine a light on his great work. His dedication to producing a quality product and serving his community makes all of South Dakota proud. I want to congratulate and thank DeLon and the entire Mork family for their outstanding devotion to our community. I send them best wishes as they continue to serve the community of Madison, SD.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Dezmond Ward, 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. Dezmond is a graduate of Milbank High School in Milbank, SD. In August, he will graduate from Concordia College in Moorhead, MN, where he studies political science and history. Dezmond 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 Dezmond 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 of all, let me offer my thanks to Senator Alexander and Senator Collins, and let me add my support for what Senator Graham has just indicated in terms of the importance of this particular amendment to the omnibus bill. Look, I am a pro-life Republican. By allowing the Hyde amendment to prevail in this particular case, as it does with all of the other funding that we send back to the States so that it cannot be used to fund abortions--and that is what this is all about--it allows us to still continue to provide, with clear consciences, the dollars necessary to provide healthcare for individuals who otherwise may not get it. This particular proposal allows for States to, once again, take charge of part of the healthcare that we want to see delivered at the local level. By taking section 1332 and expanding what States can do, we actually provide more local control, which is a conservative approach. It is also one more opportunity to reduce the impact of what many of us have said was a mistake with ObamaCare in the first place. For conservatives, a lot of us campaigned on the fact that we wanted to repeal and replace ObamaCare. To repeal it and replace it, you have to have 60 votes here. In this particular case, what we have said is: Let's take those parts that are the most onerous and those parts that are adding to the cost of healthcare and take those out, but let's provide and continue to provide the protections that some people feel ObamaCare was responsible for, such as guaranteed renewable products, which were included in South Dakota's law before ObamaCare ever came along, and the opportunity for everybody to apply for a policy and to be accepted one way or another. This particular piece of legislation allows for, perhaps, as many as 3.2 million Americans to actually be able to afford the policies that, today, they can't afford. I believe Senator Alexander used the example of someone who is making $60,000 a year and has a bill of $20,000 for his healthcare. The reality is that that person is not buying healthcare. So let's allow those folks the opportunity to have a reduction in the premiums that they otherwise could not afford to pay. This allows for the States, on a very responsible basis, to do what Senator Collins, as a former insurance commissioner, understands so clearly. What we have done with ObamaCare is to force individuals who have no place else to go into what we call the individual market. When we force all--or the vast majority--of the individuals who have health problems into the individual market to get coverage, it artificially drives up the cost of that individual policy. That individual market makes up 6 percent of the total number of the people who are covered, but that 6 percent of the premium going in picks up an unfairly large number of individuals who have no place else to go to get insurance. That drives the cost of the premiums up for those individuals and makes it, in many cases, more costly than they could ever afford. With a reinsurance provision for the States, it allows for a State to say: Look, issue the policies, but then allow us to expand the base over which we spread those losses. Let those States do that. This worked successfully before ObamaCare was ever a bad dream. This allows for us to take a larger base of people to share and to spread that risk. When you do that, you make that market more stable, and you start to invite carriers to step back into the market. That is what this is all about. I am not going to try to assign the intention of our colleagues who are on the other side of the aisle. I am a pragmatist. I really do believe that we have some very sincere colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand how important this is. What I would invite is this: I am a conservative Republican. I want to see this move forward. I think, for the good of the American people, this is the right move to make. I would ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the good this would do for people across this entire country and to find a way to work through this process in such a fashion that they could comfortably come forward and help us to get this to the finish line. If we can do this, we will make things better not just for those 3.2 million Americans who would be able to qualify for insurance once again and be able to pay for it, but we honestly believe--and it is the Congressional Budget Office that has suggested this--that somewhere between 20 percent of the premiums they would otherwise pay would solidly be reduced. In some cases, according to healthcare professionals in the private market--these are the people who actually suggest and work with the insurance companies--as much as 40 percent of that total cost could be reduced. This is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of trying to actually make an impact on the lives of real Americans who need our help. Remember that the American people did not ask for ObamaCare, but they are the ones who are suffering because of the premium increases that have been caused by this law in the first place. What we are trying to do in what is, hopefully, an acceptable fashion is to find colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will once again join us in this legislation that they had previously supported-- for them to find a way to step forward--and actually help fix a problem for real Americans. Once again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all of the hard work he has done. As a former Governor, he understands that, once in a while, you reach across the aisle, and you find ways to get things done. In the Senate, it requires 60 votes to make this happen. I thank Senator Collins for her work. She is a former insurance commissioner. She gets it. She understands it. We want to find the common ground that it takes to actually fix a problem for the American people. This is not and should not be a partisan issue--fixing a problem that we all agree exists today. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 298.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 308, S. 2286.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to and the Corker amendment at the desk be agreed to.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings 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, I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2155 under the previous order.

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.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on Senate amendment No. 2151, as modified, expire at 3:45 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14; further, that if cloture is invoked on S. 2155, the time count as if invoked at midnight, Wednesday, March 14.

Mr. ROUNDS

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

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act which is being considered on the Senate floor for this week. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation which will provide much needed regulatory relief to our community banks and credit unions whose ability to serve their customers has been made more difficult since the passage of the Dodd- Frank Act. Enacted in 2010, Dodd-Frank was an overreaction to the 2008 financial crisis. Rather than actually addressing the underlying issues that caused the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank created a massive new bureaucracy and saddled our financial institutions with burdensome and onerous new regulations. It is 2,300 pages in length and created more than 400 new rulemakings, which led to 27,000 new Federal mandates on American businesses. This limits the ability of our financial institutions to grow and serve their customers, especially for smaller banks in rural areas such as in my home State of South Dakota. Just last summer, the U.S. Department of Treasury reported that the regulatory burdens of Dodd-Frank have reduced economic growth and ``undermined the ability of banks to deliver attractively priced credit in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the economy.'' Without question, no one wants to repeat the events that contributed to the economic recession that began in 2008. We are only now beginning to lift out of that nearly decade-long economic slump, thanks to the tax relief law and President Trump's focus on regulatory reform. Just in the last year, we have enacted historic tax reform, we have undone burdensome and unnecessary regulations at a record pace, and we are restoring the American people's confidence at levels not seen in decades, but we must do more, which is why our bipartisan legislation is so important. Making sure American families and businesses have access to credit when they need it is critical as we work to grow our economy and create jobs. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act will strengthen America's financial system and expand economic opportunities across the entire country, especially in rural areas which are often the most underserved. Of the many fatal flaws of Dodd-Frank, perhaps most damaging was its one-size-fits-all approach. By taking a one-size-fits-all approach, Dodd-Frank imposed disproportionate compliance costs on our smaller community banks and credit unions, especially given the improbability that these smaller institutions pose a significant risk to our financial system. This type of approach is particularly harmful to our smaller financial institutions which are so vital to our communities. With more than 6,500 community banks throughout the country supporting even the remotest areas, we must make certain we are helping and not hindering their ability to serve their communities. Almost half of small businesses, which we all know are the drivers of job creation and economic growth in America, are supported by small community banks. Providing these institutions with regulatory relief is critical, which is what our legislation does. Let me go through some of the highlights, which include seven provisions or bills I introduced. It includes the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, which I introduced with Senator Heitkamp earlier this year, and will provide small banks and credit unions with data reporting relief. We also provide relief from Dodd-Frank capital rules that allow banks to count high-quality municipal bonds toward capital requirements, providing help to both banks and local units of government that issue that debt. In other words, those banks can now make a market for those municipal bonds once again. Our legislation also streamlines Federal rules to help small, local Federal savings associations, known as FSA's or thrifts, expand their ability to offer loans to more families and businesses without going through a costly charter conversion process. It also includes parts of the Community Bank Access to Capital Act, which would free small banks from having to complete arduous and expensive tests which are already mandated by Dodd-Frank, and it makes it easier for banks with less than $3 billion in assets to raise capital and grow. I am also pleased it includes my provision to protect the credit of our Nation's veterans, so veterans waiting on delayed payments from the VA Choice Program cannot lose their credit ratings because of it. It is a sad commentary when you have to make a law in the financial institutions section of the code to take care of veterans because the VA cannot pay their bills on time. It also protects seniors by removing liability for financial services institutions and professionals reporting suspected fraud of senior citizens to the authorities. We also provide relief to small public housing agencies by reducing regulatory burdens on and increasing flexibility for these entities. This bill also provides rural appraisal relief for cases when buyers have trouble finding a qualified appraiser. The reason for this is because if you want to get a home loan, one of the requirements under Dodd-Frank is that you have to have a qualified appraiser actually appraise the home, regardless of where you live. What this provision does is it relaxes some of those rules with regard to where the amounts on a mortgage can be, less than a particular amount as specified in our bill, and still be a qualified mortgage so banks can move them on to the secondary market. That helps to create a market for those mortgages, making it easier for a consumer to actually access that credit. Our bill also gives the Federal Reserve flexibility in designating banks as systemically important, exempting banks with less than $100 billion in assets from several Dodd-Frank provisions that apply to systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs, including reporting requirements, limits on lending, and limits on mergers and acquisitions. Also banks with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion would receive relief from tighter oversight applied by Dodd-Frank. This would exempt 15 regional and midsized banks from these more stringent rules. Meanwhile, more than a dozen of our country's largest banks will still have to comply with the SIFI requirements. These are the largest financial institutions. We also eliminate barriers to jobs by allowing mortgage loan originators to work temporarily in a new State or for a new financial institution while their applications for new licenses are pending. Our bill also requires the Treasury to study and report on the risks of cyber threats to our financial institutions and capital markets. Finally, our bill provides regulatory relief from enhanced supplementary leverage ratio for certain banks that service organizations like mutual funds and State and local pension plans. It doesn't hardly seem appropriate that we would make our banks less competitive than foreign banks for providing that same service. Let's keep that opportunity and that market within our own borders as well. Let's allow them to be competitive, which saves on costs for mutual fund purchasers. This benefits countless local governments across the country that do business with these banks. In my home State alone, this includes the State of South Dakota, the South Dakota Retirement System, the Rapid City Regional Hospital, the city of Vermillion, and the Watertown School District, just to name a few of them. While this provision will not help all banks, it will affect some banks, which benefits consumers, and in the future perhaps we can give the same relief to all banks that offer these important services. These provisions, along with the many others of our bill, will strengthen our financial system in the United States and reduce the unnecessary burdens on small or midsized banks so they can focus on serving their communities, not complying with layers of bureaucracy. Making sure families and businesses have access to credit when they need it is critical as we work to grow a healthy American economy. Every step we can take to provide relief to our lenders is a win for families and businesses that rely on them to run their businesses, to buy a home, or to save for college. Small community banks don't think of banking in terms of derivatives and default swaps like they do on Wall Street. They think of banking in terms of how they can best serve their communities, their friends, neighbors, store owners, and job providers. Our bipartisan Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act will help these lenders focus on doing just exactly that. I thank Chairman Crapo and the other 24 cosponsors of this legislation for their commitment to working together to provide much needed relief that will enhance our ability to grow our economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROUNDS

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, while I enjoy the humor that my colleague from Arkansas has expressed, this is an important bill. What we have done is what the President has asked for. No. 1, this provides $25 billion for a border security system. No. 2, it addresses the issue of DACA. It takes care of 1.8 million young people who want to be citizens of the United States 10 to 12 years from now. It does not provide a citizenship opportunity for their parents. I yield at this time to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to echo the comments by Senator Collins and Senator King on the intent of the provision and our commitment to move this date back to the beginning of the year. This provision is needed to ensure that we are providing a deterrent. Individuals who come to the U.S. after a particular date must know that we are going to focus resources on their deportation just like we will focus on felons and other criminals and those who pose a threat to our Nation's security or public safety.