John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats continue to push forward with their partisan COVID legislation. The House of Representatives passed the Democrats' $1.9 trillion partisan wish list on Saturday, and the Senate is expected to take it up later this week. Just weeks after the President expressed his commitment to unity at his inauguration, he and his party are forcing through exclusively partisan legislation despite Republicans' clear willingness to negotiate. When it comes to Democrats' COVID bill, President Biden keeps asking, ``What would you have me cut?''--as if there is no way anyone could dispute the necessity of anything in this legislation. Well, as I said last week, I have some suggestions because this bill is rife with unnecessary and problematic provisions. Democrats are presenting this as a COVID relief bill, but a lot of this bill has little to do with responding to the pandemic. In fact, less than 10 percent of the bill is directly related to combating the COVID health crisis. If President Biden would like to know what to cut, let me suggest starting with the bill's $350 billion slush fund for States. Now, there is no question that COVID has placed additional pressure on States, which is why Republicans supported targeted funding for States in previous COVID legislation. But at this point, the vast majority of States are not in crisis. A number of States actually saw higher tax revenues in 2020. The majority of States, including my home State of South Dakota, have the resources they need to weather the rest of the pandemic. Even if the Federal Government bailed out those States that are still struggling-- some, at least partially, because of their own mismanagement--$350 billion far exceeds the amount that would be needed. Democrats are simply providing a large and unnecessary giveaway to States with the distribution formula heavily weighted in favor of blue States. Then there is the bill's funding for schools. Now, Republicans are committed to getting schools reopened so our kids can get back to the in-person learning that they need. It is why we voted for $68 billion in COVID funding for K-12 schools last year. But right now, schools don't need additional funding. So far K-12 schools have spent just $5 billion of the $68 billion that we provided them. Yet the Democrats' bill would provide nearly $129 billion in additional funding. And despite all that additional and unnecessary money, nothing--nothing--in the bill would require schools to actually reopen. Schools could collect this money while still depriving students of the benefits of in-person learning. And another thing, Democrats are billing this legislation as a COVID relief bill and suggesting that it is providing urgently needed funding. Yet 95 percent of the funding for schools--95 percent--would be spent after this year. That is right. Just 5 percent of this ``emergency funding'' would be spent in 2021. The rest would be spent between 2022 and 2028. Are we really supposed to believe that money that would be spent in 2028--years after the pandemic is likely to be over--is somehow urgently needed COVID relief funding? Well, I could go on for a while here with suggestions for what to cut in this bill. I am pretty sure that $100 million for a Silicon Valley underground rail project doesn't have a lot to do with getting our country out of the COVID crisis. Or how about the $1.5 million for a bridge in the Democratic leader's home State? And then there is the $86 billion bailout for multiemployer pension plans, billions--billions--for environmental policies, and a provision to ensure that Planned Parenthood and labor unions can apply for Paycheck Protection Program loans designed to help small businesses--I am not sure how far that will go toward helping our economy, but it will certainly help build the coffers of some of Democrats' political allies. If Democrats were really just focused on COVID relief, this would be a much smaller and targeted bill, but Democrats' ambitions were much larger than just addressing the COVID crisis. As a Democrat political operative famously said, ``never allow a good crisis to go to waste.'' Well, Democrats have taken that advice and are using the COVID crisis as cover for a whole list of partisan priorities with potentially very negative consequences. The Democrats' COVID bill runs a very real risk of overstimulating the economy, as evidenced by the large increase we have seen in money supply which could, among other things, drive up prices on the goods that Americans use every day--in other words, inflation. Even some liberal economists have sounded the alarm over the size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation. And then, of course, there is the danger posed by driving up our debt. We had to borrow a lot of money last year to meet the demands of the coronavirus crisis, and while it was money we needed to borrow, we need to be very aware of the fact that we added a substantial-- substantial--amount to our already very large national debt. We need to be very careful about any additional borrowing and ensure that we are only borrowing what is absolutely necessary. I think it goes without saying that the more that we borrow, the more debt we have to retire. If something negative happened on interest rates and interest rates normalized--went back to a more normal setting--the interest itself on that amount of debt would literally dwarf anything else we do in our budget, including defending the country. And that, I believe, is a very, very real threat, because if you look at what is happening right now with the economy and with all the money that we have flooded out there so far and another $2 trillion, if the Democrats have their way in this particular proposal, and all that money out there starts pushing up those costs and we start seeing inflation in the economy, it doesn't take very long for interest rates to go with it. In fact, they already are. If those interest rates start pushing up very quickly on the amount of debt that we are piling up, financing that debt--the amount of interest, the cost of interest on that debt--would be absolutely overwhelming and devastating to this country. So we need to be very, very careful about any additional borrowing and ensure that we are only borrowing what is absolutely necessary. That means making sure that anything we do in terms of additional pandemic relief is targeted and fiscally responsible, and that does not include money for a bridge in New York or a taxpayer bailout for mismanaged States. It is deeply disappointing that Democrats chose to turn their backs on bipartisanship. Republicans were ready to work with Democrats on additional targeted relief. As I have pointed out before, the pandemic has been an issue on which, at least up until now, there has been very much bipartisan support. Last year, when Republicans were in the majority, we did five--five--coronavirus bills, all bipartisan, all done at the 60-vote threshold that governs most legislation that moves through the Senate in a cooperative way. In this case, the Democrats are plowing forward, pushing this legislation in a very partisan way, and I think that is unfortunate given our history on this issue of bipartisanship and the importance of making sure that we are doing the right things on behalf of the American people to help them get through this pandemic. Choosing to pursue a partisan process allows Democrats to stuff the bill with unnecessary spending and political payoffs, but that is not the way to help our country or our economy recover. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Senate confirmed Tom Vilsack as the Secretary of Agriculture. It is a role he is familiar with, having previously served as Agriculture Secretary under President Obama. I voted in support of his nomination because I believe he understands the issues facing farmers and ranchers and is sincere in his desire to work with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to support our Nation's agriculture producers. Agriculture is the lifeblood of my home State of South Dakota, and fighting for farmers and ranchers is one of my top priorities here in the Senate. I am very pleased to, once again, serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee in this Congress, which gives me an important platform to advocate for South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers across the country. One huge priority for me over the past year has been making sure agriculture producers have the support they need to weather this pandemic. During debate on the CARES Act--our largest coronavirus relief bill to date--I fought to make sure we included relief for farmers and ranchers, and I followed up by advocating for cattle producers with the Department of Agriculture to make sure they would receive funds. I also worked to ensure that additional relief for farmers and ranchers was included in the COVID legislation that we passed in December. The Coronavirus Food Assistance Program that the USDA established to distribute funding, included in the CARES Act, has distributed billions in direct support to agriculture producers, which has been key in helping them weather this pandemic. Now that Secretary Vilsack has been confirmed, I urge him to lift the Biden administration's freeze on part of this important program and distribute the additional funding from the December relief package as soon as possible. I also urge the Department of Agriculture to use its authority to provide assistance to agriculture processors like the biofuels industry. During my meeting with Secretary Vilsack prior to his confirmation, we spent time discussing my Soil Health and Income Protection Program, which became law as part of the 2018 farm bill. That program, the SHIPP program, allows farmers to take their lowest performing croplands out of production for 3 to 5 years. This benefits the environment by increasing soil health and water quality, and it benefits farmers by providing them with a rental payment for the acres they have temporarily removed from production. I will continue to urge Secretary Vilsack to expand farmers' access to SHIPP by holding another signup this year. I will also continue to urge him to address another priority I brought up in our meeting, and that is the November 1 haying and grazing date for cover crops on prevented plant acres, which is too late in the year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. As I said, one of my top priorities has been making sure farmers and ranchers have the support they need during the pandemic. When it became clear that farmers and ranchers were largely missing out on the Paycheck Protection Program that Congress had set up to help small businesses weather the pandemic, Senator Baldwin and I introduced legislation to allow more farmers and ranchers to access the program by allowing them to use their gross incomes rather than their net incomes to determine their loan awards. Our Paycheck Protection for Producers Act became law as part of the coronavirus relief bill that Congress passed in December. Senator Baldwin and I have continued to engage with the Treasury Department and the Small Business Administration to ensure that the Paycheck Protection Program is working properly for farmers and ranchers. For example, we recently led a bipartisan letter urging a broader implementation of our Paycheck Protection for Producers Act to ensure that farmers and ranchers who are organized as partnerships or limited liability companies are allowed to apply for Paycheck Protection Program loans by using this more favorable gross income formula, as was intended. These issues are front of mind for ag producers in my State, and, last week, I had the opportunity to discuss many of them in person with representatives of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association, which represents and advocates for corn farmers in South Dakota. Another thing we spent a lot of time talking about was biofuels. In addition to helping to feed our Nation, corn and soybean farmers provide essential feedstocks for biofuels, like ethanol and biodiesel, which provide an important source of cleaner energy. I have long been an advocate for biofuels for their clean energy potential and the benefits they offer to the agriculture industry. When I met with Secretary Vilsack, he committed to working with me to promote ethanol as a form of clean energy--a commitment he echoed at his confirmation hearing. I recently introduced two bipartisan pieces of legislation to support the increased use of biofuels and emphasize their clean energy potential. The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel by using the U.S. Department of Energy's GREET model. A recent Harvard study found that ethanol is 46 percent cleaner than gasoline, with some technologies reducing life-cycle emissions by as much as 61 percent. These findings underscore how biofuels can reduce emissions in the near term using our Nation's existing vehicles. Currently, however, the EPA's modeling does not fully recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and other biofuels. The Adopt GREET Act would fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here and abroad. I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel registrations with the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely used in States like California. My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the research and facility investments they have made and improve their operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential market. The pandemic has highlighted vulnerabilities in our Nation's food supply chain, especially when it comes to meat processing capacity. Too much of our Nation's processing capacity is concentrated in a handful of facilities, leaving our meat supply vulnerable if a problem like a coronavirus outbreak occurs at one of these plants. I recently introduced the Strengthening Local Processing Act with Senator Merkley. Our legislation would help expand national meat processing capacity by providing new resources for smaller, more local meat processing operations. Spreading out and expanding our Nation's meat processing capacity over more plants will make our Nation's meat supply less vulnerable to interruption in situations like the coronavirus pandemic or natural disasters and provide livestock producers with more marketing options. I am proud to represent South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here in Congress, and I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that all of our Nation's farmers and ranchers have the support they need to weather the rest of this pandemic and to continue feeding our Nation and the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, earlier this month, 16 Democratic Senators introduced a resolution calling for President Biden to forgive $50,000 of Federal student loan debt per borrower--$50,000. There is no question that student loan debt is a problem for many Americans. College costs have risen to unrealistically high levels, and many students or their parents take out unrealistic amounts of debt in response. But the answer to this problem is not to have the President or Congress simply step in and forgive a large chunk of student loan debt. To start with, Democrats' plan is incredibly, fundamentally unfair. Right now, there are individuals around this country who have just paid off the last of their student loans. They have been working hard, making payments, sometimes for a couple of years, sometimes for a couple of decades, as was the case with me. What happens to these individuals if the President steps in and forgives $50,000 of student debt? Well, I will tell you what happens--nothing. These individuals who have worked hard for years to pay off their debt will see no benefit from the Democrats' blanket loan forgiveness. Meanwhile, other Americans who have made no more than a month or two of payments will see their student loans entirely disappear. That is incredibly unfair. In addition to being unfair, forgiving student loan debt does absolutely nothing to address the problems that created this debt crisis in the first place. In fact, the Democrats' solution is likely to make things worse. What possible incentive will students have to take the responsible approach to borrowing if they think the Federal Government will step in and solve their debt problem? What incentive will colleges have to restrain tuition growth if they think they can rely on the Federal Government to subsidize their students' tuition fees through loan forgiveness? Forgiving $50,000 in student loans would also set a terrible precedent on the sanctity of contracts. While it may at times be ill- advised, students freely enter into the agreements they make when they take out a loan. Should we really be teaching that agreements and contracts mean nothing, that people can incur debt and then not have to pay it off? And about that ``not paying it off,'' the phrase ``student loan forgiveness'' carries with it a suggestion that these debts will just disappear, that $50,000 can be wiped off each American's slate and vanish into the ether. But, of course, we know that is not the case either. This is money students have borrowed from the Federal Government, and if the Government doesn't get that money back, the Government will be facing an unexpected debt. Now, some people, especially some Democrats, tend to talk as if the Government draws on an unlimited pot of money, but, of course, we know that is not true. Government funds aren't anywhere close to being unlimited, and Government coffers are not filled from a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They are filled by taxpayer dollars, and, sooner or later, it will be taxpayers who foot the bill for any loan forgiveness program, including the many taxpayers who opted not to attend college or chose a debt-free way of doing so. There are a lot of Americans out there who saved up to get a degree or went part-time to avoid incurring debt. Are they really supposed to foot the bill for other Americans' student loans? While you might think that Democrats' plan is largely targeted to low-income or disadvantaged individuals, that is not actually the case. Under the Democrats' plan, an American making $20,000 and an American making $120,000 would receive the same loan relief. In fact, since more loan dollars are held by those in higher income brackets, higher income Americans could end up benefiting the most. And that brings up another thing that we need to remember. Yes, a number of Americans carry a significant amount of student loan debt, but some of those Americans have incurred that debt for a career that will bring significant financial rewards. Plus, a substantial portion of student loan debt is not for undergraduate degrees but for graduate and professional degrees. Under the Democrats' student loan forgiveness proposal, taxpayers could be subsidizing not just bachelor's degrees but master's degrees and Ph.D. degrees, as well as law and medical degrees. Instead of putting taxpayers on the hook for billions, we should be focused on exploring ways to drive down education costs and educate students on the dangers of taking on excessive debt. We should also be highlighting affordable education options like our Nation's community and technical colleges. These colleges, like the outstanding institutions we have in South Dakota, provide students with associate's degrees, certificates, apprenticeships, opportunities to learn a trade, and more. There are also things we could do to help students pay off loans without putting taxpayers on the hook for such massive amounts of money. In December, Congress passed a 5-year legislation that I introduced with Senator Warner to allow employers to help employees repay their loans. Our Employer Participation and Repayment Act amends the Educational Assistance Program to permit employers to make tax-free payments on their employees' student loans. Previously, employers could make tax-free contributions to their employees' tuition if their employees were currently taking classes, but they couldn't provide tax-free contributions to help employees with education debts that they had already incurred. Our bill allows them to make tax-free contributions to help with employees' already existing student loan debt. That is a win-win situation. It is a win for employees who get help paying off their student loans, and it is a win for employers who have a new option for attracting and retaining talented workers. Our bill is not a silver bullet, but it will certainly help ease the pain of paying back student loans for a number of young Americans. I am pleased it was enacted into law for a 5-year period, and I hope Congress will act to make it permanent. Another big thing we could do is make sure that graduates have access to good-paying jobs. This is key to enabling people to pay off their debt, and we should resolve to build on the economic progress that we had made prepandemic and focus on policies that will allow our economy to grow and to thrive. High college costs and student debt are a problem, but blanket loan forgiveness is not the answer. I hope that President Biden will resist Democratic calls to put taxpayers on the hook for literally billions and billions of dollars in student loans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his inaugural address, President Biden spoke about his desire to unify. He said this: Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation. Admirable words, but words have to be met with action, and, right now, we are not seeing much of an attempt to unify from the President or his party. In fact, we are seeing pretty much the opposite. The Democrats have made it very clear they are determined to pass another COVID bill on a purely partisan basis, which is particularly disappointing because, up until now, COVID relief has been a bipartisan process. That is right. To date, Congress has passed five COVID relief bills, and every single one of those bills has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. I might add, last year, when we were in the majority, Senate Democrats made it very clear that they thought the minority should have a voice in COVID relief and that any legislation should reflect the thoughts of both parties. The Democratic leader filibustered the CARES Act--our largest COVID relief bill--multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with, but now that the Democrats are in the majority, apparently, they have decided that it is their way or the highway. Forget the fact that the Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are determined to ensure that the Republicans and the Americans they represent don't have a voice in this bill. The Democrats' move to use reconciliation to force through a purely partisan COVID bill might be understandable--and I add ``might''--if the Republicans had made it clear that we opposed doing anything else on COVID, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The Republicans have made it very clear that we are willing to work with the Democrats on additional targeted relief. Just weeks ago, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement, but while the President certainly listened to them graciously, it quickly became clear that their efforts didn't matter. It didn't matter how willing the Republicans were to negotiate; the Democrats had no intention of reaching an agreement. They wanted to go it alone, and they were not going to let the Republicans stop them. In a speech a few days ago, President Biden acknowledged that people have criticized his $1.9 trillion plan but asked: What would they have me cut? What would they have me leave out? Well, let me offer a few ideas. For starters, it might be a good idea to cut out the sections of the Democrats' bill that have nothing to do with combating COVID. The Democrats are calling this a COVID relief bill, but in actual fact, much of this bill has little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, less than 10 percent of the bill is directly related to combating COVID. If President Biden wants to know what sections of the bill to cut, I might suggest starting with the bill's minimum wage hike. The Democratic bill would more than double the Federal minimum wage at a cost of an estimated 1.4 million jobs--that according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would be problematic enough at a time when we are already dealing with substantial job losses, but it is even worse when you realize that the people most likely to lose their jobs as a result of this hike would be lower income workers. I would also suggest that the President cut his $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, which has nothing to do with emergency COVID relief. The President could also consider cutting his $350 billion slush fund for States and localities, which would be used mostly to reward States that shut down their businesses for extended periods and, therefore, have higher unemployment rates. It has become clear the majority of States are doing OK financially despite the pandemic. A number of States actually saw higher tax revenues in 2020, and a majority of States have the resources needed to weather the rest of this crisis. Three hundred fifty billion dollars far exceeds projected State need. And while we are on that topic, the economic stimulus provided by President Biden's bill, in general, far exceeds the economic need and may actually harm the economy. Even without a dollar more of stimulus spending, our economy is expected to grow at a robust 3.7 percent in 2021. The massive amount of spending that the President is proposing to inject into the economy runs the very real risk of overheating the economy and driving up inflation, and you don't have to take my word for it. Even some liberal economists have expressed their concern over the size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation and the damage that it could do to the economy. Then, of course, there is the money the bill includes for schools. Now, while children in some places, like South Dakota, are in school, we need to get all kids back to in-person learning. In-person learning is important for kids' academic, social, and emotional health, and as Republicans have demonstrated, we want to ensure that schools have the resources they need to get back into the classroom safely. Our previous coronavirus bills contained more than $100 billion for education, and I think it is safe to say that every Republican would support additional dollars, if needed, but the fact of the matter is, schools still have billions of dollars from previous coronavirus legislation that remains unspent. And the Biden bill would appropriate an additional $129 billion for schools that schools would get--they would get--whether or not they get kids back into the classroom. On top of that, most of that money would go to schools beginning next year and stretching all the way to 2028; in other words, long after the pandemic will be over. In fact, less--if you can believe this, less than 5 percent of the education spending would occur this year. Ultimately, the Biden bill's school funding ends up looking less like a plan to get our kids back in schools and more like caving in to the teachers' unions. So if President Biden would like to know what to cut, I would suggest he start with some of the things I have highlighted. And I would ask--I would ask that he and the Democratic leadership abandon their plan to shove through a bloated, partisan bill, paid for with all borrowed money--every single dollar goes on the debt--and to start trying for the unity that the President has talked about. The President could show that he really meant what he said in his inaugural address by sitting down, in a serious way, with Republicans to develop targeted relief legislation. We are ready to come to the table. The ball is in the President's court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Ms. Jane Anne Boorman, a native South Dakotan and dedicated public servant, who passed away in December. Jane was deeply respected among her peers and beyond, having earned a superb reputation with her hard work and integrity. Jane was active and well-known in South Dakota Republican Party politics, and she was a thought-leader and friend, who no doubt helped inspire countless leaders and support important efforts throughout our great State. I extend my deep condolences and prayers to the Boorman family. The following is Jane's obituary honoring the life of this great South Dakotan. The material follows: Jane Anne Boorman (1932 to 2020), a retired federal employee, Congressional aide, and newspaper editor died on December 11, 2020, at Arbor Place Retirement Home in Rockville, Maryland. She was 88. Jane was born in Lemmon, South Dakota to Anne Sutton Boorman and Lloyd Bruce (LB) Boorman. She graduated from Lemmon High School and Marquette University. Jane's life straddled South Dakota and Washington, DC. Born and raised on the high plains in Lemmon, South Dakota, Jane embodied the flinty independence of its early settlers. She was hard to know and always pushed for perfection, but once you were in her life you had a steadfast, loyal, and loving friend. In Lemmon, Jane was editor and held other roles at the Lemmon Leader--the family-owned newspaper--where she worked until 1973. She also was named co-editor for ``Dakota Panorama''--an history of South Dakota published by the South Dakota Territory Centennial observance in 1961. Jane's passion for Republican party politics started early in her life. She was selected Outstanding Young Republican Woman in South Dakota and represented South Dakota as the state's Young Republican National Committee woman in 1961. In 1963 she was elected Vice Chairman of the National Young Republican Federation. In 1973, she moved from Lemmon to Washington, D.C. to be a Press Secretary for then Congressman James Abdnor when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She followed Abdnor to the U.S. Senate in 1981 as the Senator's personal secretary. As the Washington Post noted in 1986, Jane was ``the embodiment of that Hill legend--the furiously devoted personal secretary, a combination mother, wife and watchdog, protecting as she sees best the beloved senator behind the door.'' Boorman joined the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in 1987 as Director of Communications after President Ronald Reagan appointed Abdnor as Administrator of the SBA. During her 28 years at the Agency, Jane held various positions including managing the agency's relationship with SCORE and coordinating activities when international delegations visited the SBA. She retired from the SBA in 2015. In Washington, she made her home at Riverside Condominium for 48 years and was active on the condo board, Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, and was a long-time organist at Fort Leslie J. McNair, and at St. Dominic Catholic Church. Although she lived in Washington DC, Jane maintained a strong foothold in South Dakota through memberships in the S.D. Newspaper Association, the S.D. Historical Society, and in championing growth for her hometown of Lemmon. She was also a lifetime member of the Society of Professional Journalists. She is survived by her brother Bruce Boorman, Santee, California, and numerous nieces and nephews. Jane was preceded in her death by her parents and a sister, Katherine Becker, Hartford, Wisconsin. In remembrance of Jane Boorman's life, the family asks that any charitable donations be made to WETA, Jane's favorite classical music station or to Jewish Social Service Agency (JSSA), her amazing hospice care team. Memorial services will be held in Washington, D.C. and Lemmon, S.D after the pandemic threat has diminished.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record the following obituary for Mel Antonen, a native South Dakotan and longtime Major League Baseball reporter for USA Today and elsewhere, who passed away on January 30, 2021. He is honored by Charles Raasch, also a native South Dakotan, of USA Today with an obituary upon his death. I extend my deepest sympathy to the Antonen family. The material follows: Mel Antonen, family man, friend to the world, and renowned sports journalist, died Saturday of a rare acute auto-immune disease and complications from COVID-19. He was a longtime USA TODAY Sports and MASN-TV baseball reporter who covered nearly three dozen World Series. In a half century in journalism, he reveled and excelled in telling others' stories. He was 64. Mel Richard Antonen's own story became the best of all. It began in the tiny town of Lake Norden, South Dakota, on Aug. 25, 1956, when he was the third of four children born to Ray and Valda Antonen. Lake Norden is 225 miles from the nearest major league ballpark and has never been populated with more than 550 people, but on soft summer evenings fans from counties away congregate at Memorial Park to watch a new episode of South Dakota's storied amateur baseball history. Its pull never left him even as he walked, as a sports journalist, on Boston's hallowed Fenway Park with the late Yankees Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio, or sat in a pre-game spring training dugout with another Hall of Fame member, Minnesota Twins slugger Harmon Killebrew, weeks before Killebrew died in 2011. The Antonen family has promoted amateur baseball in Lake Norden for decades. Mel loved to tell how his father, Ray over the years brought to the tiny hometown a series of barnstorming pros, including the legendary Satchel Paige and Cy Young Award winner Jim Perry, to play at Memorial Park. On the mornings of home games throughout his childhood and beyond, Mel, his father and siblings would groom the field, with the rising corn and soybean fields ritually marking the progression of summer beyond the left-field fence. ``I love baseball because it always brings me home,'' Antonen said at his induction to South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame in 2017. ``A baseball park in my mind is a home. It doesn't matter if it's next to a cornfield, as it is in Lake Norden, or if it is next to a rumbling subway, in New York.'' At USA TODAY, and later as an analyst for MASN, the network that covers the Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles, Antonen ``was a very good storyteller who went far beyond balls and strikes and the score of the game,'' said his retired USA TODAY Sports editor Henry Freeman. Dan Connolly was among the reporters in the Washington- Baltimore area with whom Antonen was close, as they two sat next to each other in the press box and exchanged good- natured barbs. ``He had such an easy way about him with players and media and staff,'' Connolly said. ``It was one of those things, everyone liked the guy. Everyone. He had a way about him. He could relate to anybody. He was really very smart, and being a South Dakota boy, he was very ease to relate to. I remember him saying that if he didn't go into baseball writers, he wanted to be a Lutheran minister. You could tell Mel anything, he was a pastoral listening-type guy.'' Antonen's journalism career began as a kid, when he called in scores from Lake Norden's home games to two newspapers that he ended up writing for: the Watertown (S.D.) Public Opinion, which paid him as a high schooler 15 cents a copy inch; and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, where he got his first job after graduation from Augustana University, eventually covering the sports, farm and political beats. He joined USA TODAY in 1986, where one of his earliest assignments was covering the Tonya Harding Olympics figure- skating scandal. Antonen became a MLB reporter and columnist, covering history from Cal Ripken Jr.'s consecutive games streak to the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa record-breaking home run race and the steroid scandals that followed. The story he often said was seared most in his memory came during the earthquake-interrupted 1989 World Series. There, sitting in a press box high above San Francisco's Candlestick Park, he watched as the entire stadium undulated dangerously during the destructive Loma Prieta quake. Antonen filed a story, then headed out for days to cover the aftermath, focusing on the human costs. Hall of Famer Ripken told USA TODAY Sports' Bob Nightengale that Antonen ``was a fixture around the game for so many years, and it was clear that he had a passion for baseball. He was a thorough and thoughtful reporter and left his mark on his profession.'' Along with the World Series, Antonen covered three Olympics, and professional bowling leagues. ``I can't imagine being anything other than a reporter, an ink-stained wretch,'' he told his Hall of Fame audience. Freeman, his editor at USA TODAY's pioneering sports section, said Antonen's knowledge of baseball, reverence for its history, and his love of stories, was evident from the first day. ``It became clear to me right away the understanding he had of baseball, and a lot of that was because of his father,'' said Freeman. Freeman said one of his favorite stories involved Antonen at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson won the 100 meters in world-record time, but failed a drug test, was stripped of his gold medal and ordered to be sent home. USA TODAY received a tip that Johnson had reservations on one of several potential flights out of South Korea, and Freeman immediately sent Antonen to the airport to find Johnson and to do anything necessary to get an interview. Carrying nothing but a walkie-talkie and his reporter's notebook, Antonen arrived at the airport and quickly discovered that Ben Johnson was booked on a flight to Toronto. Antonen bought a ticket, went aboard and found Ben Johnson--who turned out to be a doctor, decades older than the sprinter by the same name. Antonen turned failure into a memorable human interest story about the frantic hunt through Olympics high-security obstacles that ended with the wrong Ben Johnson. ``It was a non-story that he made a good story of its own,'' Freeman said. ``It also showed the lengths that Mel would go to get a good story.'' Using persistence and personality, Antonen scored a rare interview with the notoriously press-shy DiMaggio, late in the legend's life, after learning that DiMaggio was in Boston for a special event at Fenway Park. The man considered ``ungettable'' by many sports journalists talked for several hours with Antonen, and they finished with a stroll in front of the Green Monster. DiMaggio ``loved the history of baseball,'' Antonen years later told the Argus-Leader. He was a sports broadcaster for MASN's Mid-Atlantic Sports Report, and radio analyst on Sirius-XM in the last decade of his career, and also wrote for Sports Illustrated and other publications. He did a radio interview on the baseball Hall of Fame voting from his hospital bed less than a week before his death. He especially loved talking baseball with long- haul truckers on his late-night satellite radio show. Antonen's mother died when he was 12. His father, himself enshrined in the South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame, raised Mel and his sisters, Kathy and Carmen, and brother, Rusty, with the field at Memorial Park becoming a refuge. ``My life reflects the power of baseball,'' he said in that 2017 speech. ``One of my earliest memories of Lake Norden baseball was the summer of 1969. . . . In March of that year my mom died after a year-long battle with cancer. But it was baseball, and Lake Norden baseball, with hot dogs and a 10- cent glass of pop and chasing batting-practice foul balls on a beautiful summer night, that created a diversion from fearful images of three months prior--(of) my mom's tan casket, crying adults, the hearse in front of Trinity Lutheran, on an overcast subzero day, when there were piles of snow in one of South Dakota's worst winters.'' Antonen kept reporting and writing throughout his illness with COVID-19 and an auto-immune disease so rare that his doctors told him he may have been the only person on Earth with that combination. Months after being diagnosed with both diseases, Mel scored an interview with Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and big baseball fan, who talked about the need for caution, but also hope, in a pandemic. ``You've got to go on with your life, but that doesn't mean you have to deprive yourself of all the pleasures'' Fauci told him. Antonen's final column for MASN, written after the Dodgers won the World Series in October, paid homage to the comforting and reassuring next-year ritual of baseball. It ended this way: ``World Series 2021 prediction: The Padres in six over the White Sox.'' Mel Richard Antonen is survived by his son, Emmett, 14, and his wife, Lisa Nipp, a photojournalist, whom he married in 2001, along with three siblings and their families. Lisa embraced the many characters in Mel's baseball orbit, once holding the phone for Mel with the crusty, late Hall-of-Fame pitcher Bob Feller by discussing the beauty of hollyhocks. ``From Joe DiMaggio to Dusty Baker and Bryce Harper, I have gotten to meet and interview and become friends with people that baseball fans around the world would love to know,'' he said in that Hall of Fame speech in South Dakota. ``But those experiences only happened because I grew up around people that we should all be lucky to know. The lessons learned here, and on the prairie, have gone with me and worked beautifully. And tonight, baseball brings me home once again.''

Mr. THUNE

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