John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Saturday the President announced his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ginsburg. As the Nation mourns the death of this trailblazing Justice, it is fitting that the President chose an outstanding woman to replace her. I had the pleasure of sitting down with Judge Amy Coney Barrett yesterday, and I can say with confidence that she is everything you would want in a Supreme Court Justice. She is supremely qualified. Like Justice Ginsburg, Judge Barrett was first in her class in law school--in this case, at Notre Dame. She was a clerk for DC Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman and then for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She worked at a prestigious law firm and served as a visiting professor at the George Washington University Law School before accepting a position at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she went on to teach for 15 years. During her time at Notre Dame, Judge Barrett built a distinguished record. She was published repeatedly in prominent law journals and was chosen by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She was elected Distinguished Professor of the Year by the law school's graduating class three times. She also served as a visiting associate professor at another prominent law school, the University of Virginia School of Law. In 2017, she moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, winning Senate confirmation in a bipartisan vote. During her confirmation to the Seventh Circuit, support for Judge Barrett poured forth from her students, colleagues, and peers from both side of the aisle. Every one of the Supreme Court clerks who had served with Judge Barrett during her clerkship with Justice Scalia wrote a letter to the then-chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee expressing their support for her confirmation. This included Justice Ginsburg's clerks and other clerks from the liberal wing of the Court. Here is what they had to say: We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and we have diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else. Yet we all write to support the nomination of Professor Barrett to be a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is eminently qualified for the job. Judge Barrett's colleagues from Notre Dame sent a similar letter. They said: Amy Coney Barrett will be an exceptional federal judge. . . . As a scholarly community, we have a wide range of political views, as well as commitments to different approaches to judicial methodology and judicial craft. We are united, however, in our judgment about Amy. She is a brilliant teacher and scholar, and a warm and generous colleague. She possess in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity. That letter was signed by every full-time member of the Notre Dame Law School faculty--every full-time member. Four hundred seventy Notre Dame Law graduates, former students of Judge Barrett, sent a letter as well. Here is what they said: Our backgrounds and life experiences are varied and diverse. Our legal practices are as varied as the profession itself. . . . Our religious, cultural, and political views span a wide spectrum. Despite the many and genuine differences among us, we are united in our conviction that Professor Barrett would make an exceptional federal judge. They went on: We are convinced that Professor Barrett would bring to the federal bench the same intelligence, fairness, decency, generosity, and hard work she has demonstrated at Notre Dame Law School. She will treat each litigant with respect and care, conscious of the reality that judicial decisions greatly affect the lives of those before the court. And she will apply the law faithfully and impartially. I could go on for a while here. There are a lot of tributes to Amy Coney Barrett out there, like the one in support of her circuit court nomination that was joined by former Obama Solicitor General Neal Katyal, which praised her ``first-rate'' qualifications and stated that she was ``exceptionally well qualified'' or the recent tribute from Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, one of the House Democrats' star impeachment witnesses, who stated: ``Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.'' But I will stop here because I think it is abundantly obvious to everyone--my colleagues across the aisle included--that Judge Barrett is supremely qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, which is why Democrats have resorted to scare tactics to try to sink her nomination. Democrats realize that it is pretty hard to oppose Judge Barrett on the merits, and they seem at least somewhat wary of attacking her religion, as they did during her confirmation hearing to the Seventh Circuit, when multiple Democrats suggested that Judge Barrett was unqualified because she happened to be a practicing Catholic. I think Democrats may be realizing that their bias against religious people doesn't play well with the millions of Americans who take their faith seriously. They may also be remembering that the Constitution explicitly forbids--forbids--religious tests for public office, although I will note that that didn't stop one of the Democratic Presidential candidate's advisers from saying just this week that she doesn't think that orthodox Catholics, Muslims, or Jews should sit on the Supreme Court. That is right--in this Biden adviser's world, taking your religious faith seriously should disqualify you from sitting on the Supreme Court. Apparently Democrats still don't think that people of faith are capable of upholding the Constitution or discharging the duties of their office. But, again, it seems the Democrats realize that offending millions of religious Americans may not be their best strategy, so they have turned to healthcare scare tactics. Judge Barrett, Democrats say, will take away Americans' healthcare if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. It is actually a very old Democratic line--something that they always use in their playbook. It was deployed, if you can believe this, against Justice Kennedy when he was a Supreme Court nominee back in 1986. It was deployed against Justice Souter, a Republican nominee, who became known for siding with the liberal wing of the Court. There were lots of posters at the time that said things like ``Stop Souter or women will die.'' ``He will jeopardize the health and lives of Americans,'' it was said by the left at the time. It was deployed against Justice Roberts--the very same man who cast the deciding vote upholding the Affordable Care Act--when he was Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. They said at the time that there would literally be millions of American consumers and families at risk of losing their coverage. That statement was made by a Member of the current leadership here in the U.S. Senate about Chief Justice Roberts. Now it is being deployed against Judge Barrett in an attempt to derail her nomination, while promulgating one of the liberals' favorite myths--that Republicans are eagerly waiting to rip away Americans' healthcare. Democrats are particularly focused on suggesting that Republicans would like to take away protections for preexisting conditions, despite the fact, I might add, that every single Senate Republican supports protecting people with preexisting conditions--every single Senate Republican. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Republicans included language affirming protections for those with preexisting conditions in our COVID relief bill--a bill that Democrats filibustered. It is both ridiculous and offensive to suggest that Judge Barrett, the mom of seven children--more than one of whom has faced medical challenges--is out to eliminate Americans' healthcare. The truth is, we have no idea how Judge Barrett would vote on any particular healthcare case, just as we have no idea how any Supreme Court Justice will vote on any particular healthcare case. How could we? How could we? Each case is unique, with unique legal and constitutional issues. What we can say with certainty about Judge Barrett is that she will carefully consider each case. She will consider the facts of the case, the law, and the Constitution, and she will rule based on those things regardless of her personal feelings or beliefs. As Judge Barrett noted in her speech accepting the President's nomination, ``A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold.'' That is the kind of Justice that Judge Barrett would be, and that is the kind of Justice that all of us, Democrat or Republican, should want--someone who will protect the principles of justice and equality under the law by judging according to the law and the Constitution and nothing else; someone who will leave her personal beliefs at the courtroom door; someone who will, as Judge Barrett said last week, quoting the judicial oath, ``administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States.'' One of the reasons I ran for the Senate was to help put judges like Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. I commend the President for his outstanding choice, and I look forward to supporting her nomination as the Senate moves forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``Yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted yea.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota how much we appreciate his leadership. He is a relentless advocate for the farmers and ranchers of North Dakota and across this country. We share a border, but we also have a lot of commonality in the people whom we represent. They are hard-working people who work from dawn to dusk to feed not only this country but the world. It has been no easy task being in agriculture during these last few years for lots of reasons, as my colleague from North Dakota has pointed out, whether it be from, of course, most recently, COVID, but also from chronically low and depressed commodity prices, coupled with bad weather, coupled with trade disputes, and difficulties with markets here and around the world. Farmers and ranchers have had a tough and difficult road these past few years, so it is critically important that we continue to be there for them. As my colleague from North Dakota pointed out, there was a concern because what we had heard initially would be in the continuing resolution that was coming over from the House--that will fund the government and that we will pass, hopefully, later this week in the Senate--was not going to include funding for agriculture and for all of those programs that keep ag running that we authorized in the farm bill. A key Member of the House Agriculture Committee, Senator Boozman, of Arkansas, who is also a key member of that committee--in fact, he is somebody we hope to be the next chairman of that committee--and the current chairman of our authorizing committee, Senator Roberts, of Kansas, who, I think, will be down here in just a few minutes, all played an important role, along with the ag community. All of the organizations that Senator Hoeven is going to talk about engaged right away when they realized what was happening, and we were able to work together to solve that. Now we will consider on the floor of the Senate the continuing resolution to fund the government that does include funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation, which provides the funds that keep all of those agricultural programs that we authorize when we do a farm bill. The last farm bill was in 2018, and we were all involved with that. It would keep all of those programs funded, and that is critically important. It has never been more important than it is right now in our coming out of the pandemic. Food security is an absolutely essential priority. It should be for our country, and it certainly should be for the Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate. I thank my colleague Senator Hoeven. As I said, he is a strong, strong voice for our agricultural producers. When he and I and those from Arkansas and Kansas and Nebraska--those of us from farm country-- work together and put together coalitions at times like this, it is only due to that advocacy we have heard from Senator Hoeven and others that has enabled us to be successful. I am glad that we have gotten the right outcome here, and it is something to celebrate. Obviously, our farmers and ranchers across the country are going to be, I think, enormously grateful that we have been able to get this problem resolved. I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on those issues that are important in farm country that will help our farmers and ranchers not only survive but, hopefully, prosper into the future.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I don't think anyone is surprised that Democrats have not reacted well to the idea that President Trump will nominate a third Supreme Court Justice. After all, overreacting to Republican nominees is pretty much the Democrats' stock-in-trade. It doesn't matter who the nominee is. To hear the Democrats tell it, any Republican nominee is likely to bring about Armageddon. The fact that some Republican nominees in past years, and as recently as this past June, have sided with the liberal wing of the Court more often than I would like has not in any way restrained Democrats' hysteria each time a new Republican nominee is introduced. I thought we had reached a low point 2 years ago with the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, who suffered months of character assassination at the hands of Democrats, but it turns out that was not the low point because we have reached a new low. As I said, it is no surprise the Democrats have reacted with hysteria at the prospect of President Trump nominating another Supreme Court Justice. It was disappointing--but hardly surprising--that yesterday the Democratic leader blocked a key Intelligence Committee hearing on election security, a topic he has repeatedly insisted is of overwhelming importance, to protest the thought of the Senate fulfilling its advice and consent role and confirming a principled, conservative woman. Even Speaker Pelosi's overwrought statement that Republicans are ``coming after your children,'' seemed pretty much par for the course. Democrats have not limited themselves to temper tantrums. No, Democrats have moved on to threats. Dare to confirm the President's duly nominated nominee, Democrats are now saying, and if we win back the majority in November, we will eliminate the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. In other words, if Republicans dare to fulfill the Senate's role of advising and consenting to the President's nominee, Democrats will upend our democratic institutions. They will eliminate the legislative filibuster, which is the Senate rule that helps ensure legislation that passes the Senate has to be at least somewhat bipartisan. And they will pack the Supreme Court. For those who need a brief refresher on the concept of court packing, which had been largely consigned to the dustbin of history nearly a century ago, the theory is as follows: If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases to your liking, add more Justices to the Court until you start getting the decisions that you want. In other words, let Republicans dare to fill the vacant slot on the Supreme Court, and Democrats will keep adding Justices to the Court until they can be assured they will get the outcome they want in every case. Yesterday, I referred to those Democrats as undemocratic. Why did I say that? They are inconsistent with democratic government. In our system of government, you win some and you lose some. While it is no fun when you lose, that is how things sometimes go in a democracy. Have Republicans been enthusiastic when Democrat Presidents have had nominees confirmed to the Supreme Court? No, but have Republicans suggested that Democrat Supreme Court Justices are illegitimate? Have we suggested that the proper response to a Democrat Supreme Court nominee is to pack the Supreme Court with additional Republican Justices to get a rubberstamp for Republican priorities? No, of course not. While we may not like it when Democrats are in charge, we know that Democrat-run government is legitimate, just as Republican-run government is legitimate. It has become clear over the past few years-- especially over the past few days--that Democrats think government is legitimate only when they are in charge. So Democrats are accusing Republicans of undermining our institutions by fulfilling our constitutional role because that is exactly what we are doing: fulfilling our constitutional role. Let's be very clear about that. Republicans are suggesting that we take up a Supreme Court nominee duly nominated by a duly elected President and confirm that nominee in accord with our constitutional advice and consent role. Democrats are free to think that Republicans should not consider this nominee, but it is absolutely indisputable that Republicans and the President are doing nothing more than carrying out a legitimate constitutional prerogative. What Democrats are doing, on the other hand, is trying to ensure that only one party has a say in our government--what some might call tyranny--and threatening retribution for the exercise of legitimate constitutional prerogatives. That does pose a danger to our institutions. Take the Supreme Court. A year ago, several Democrats warned that the Court's nonpartisan reputation was in jeopardy. Their argument was that the Court would look partisan if it did continue with a case the Democrats didn't like. What on Earth do Democrats think will happen to the Court's reputation if they pack the Court with additional Democrats to rubberstamp their policies? Do they really think Americans are going to see the Supreme Court as legitimate once it has been hijacked for partisan Democratic purposes? If you believe in our system of government, you have to believe that all Americans--not just those who agree with you--have a right to have a voice in the government. You are free to vehemently disagree with 50 percent of your fellow Americans. You are free to dislike it when your party is not in charge. You are free to fight fiercely for the policies and candidates you believe in. But what you cannot do without undermining our entire system is suggest that government is legitimate only when your party is in charge. If Democrats continue along this dangerous trajectory, if they continue to try to delegitimize the actions of a duly elected Senate majority and a duly elected President, they are the ones who will put our entire system at risk. If anyone wonders for a moment whether Democrats are advocating a principled position--if perhaps Democrats really think it would be best for our country to eliminate the legislative filibuster Democrats have used so often or to expand the Supreme Court--one can simply ask whether Democrats will continue to advocate for these positions if President Trump is reelected and Republicans retain control of the Senate. Think about that one. I think everyone here knows what the answer to that question is, and the answer is no. As I suggested, Democrats' threats are not going to stop Republicans from carrying out our constitutional role in considering the President's nominee. One of the principle reasons that many GOP Senators, myself included, ran for office in the first place was to confirm principled judges to our courts--judges who understand that their role is to interpret the law, not make the law. While many of my Democrat colleagues would like the courts to impose their policies when they can't push them through Congress, Republicans know that legislation should come from Congress and not from the courts. The job of judges is to interpret the law as it is written, not to oppose Democrat or Republican policies from the bench. My colleagues and I were elected and reelected, in part, because of our commitment to confirming judges who would uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. We have followed through on that commitment over the past 4 years, and we are going to keep following through by voting on the President's nominee. Democrats can bluster. They can threaten. They can throw temper tantrums. But we will keep doing what we were sent here to do I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted yea.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted yea.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on Friday, we learned that trailblazing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died at the age of 87 from pancreatic cancer. Justice Ginsburg embraced the law at a time when being a woman in the field meant a constant uphill battle. She had to fight for opportunities that were available to men as a matter of course. Her work as a lawyer eventually came to focus around women's rights-- or as Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, ``the constitutional principle of the equal citizenship stature of men and women.'' Before joining the Court, she argued six gender discrimination cases before it, and as a Justice, she continued to advance this cause. She served with distinction on the Supreme Court for more than 25 years-- and engaged in some of the Court's most memorable exchanges over that period. She was known for her work ethic and tenacity, as well as her kindness and good humor, and, of course, for her love of opera and her 56-year romance with her beloved husband, Marty. She disagreed often with her good friend Justice Scalia, but they never allowed their strong disagreements to ruin their enduring friendship and mutual respect. She could dissent on the most fundamental questions, without indicting the character of those with whom she disagreed. Her work to secure equal treatment for women has earned her a place in American history, and her courage and perseverance in overcoming significant obstacles will continue to inspire many. My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Ginsburg's family.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted yea.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, South Dakota's veterans and the Hot Springs community are currently celebrating the VA's announcement that it has begun the process of rescinding its order to close the Hot Springs VA facility. This was a hard-fought victory in a battle that we weren't always sure we would win. It started almost a decade ago, in 2011, when the Obama administration announced its plans to realign-- when I say ``realign,'' reclose--the Hot Springs VA facility. I was well aware of what the Hot Springs facility means to South Dakota veterans and to the entire Hot Springs community, and I determined that there wasn't going to be a closure if I could help it. I knew that closing the Hot Springs facility would put accessible care out of the reach of a lot of rural and Tribal veterans--not only rural and Tribal South Dakota veterans but rural and Tribal veterans from neighboring Wyoming and Nebraska who depend on the Hot Springs facility for care. Traveling to Rapid City and Fort Meade for care, as the VA proposed, would be a real hardship, if not an impossibility, for many of these veterans. I also strongly disagreed with moving not only medical care but the vital Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Program from Hot Springs. Not only would this put the program out of reach of some veterans, I believed it was also a mistake to remove a tremendously effective program from the place where it has been so successful and try to reconstitute it elsewhere. I got to work in Congress, along with other Members of the South Dakota delegation. My first priority was simply trying to get Hot Springs' veterans a hearing with the VA. In 2016, after years of trying, we persuaded then-VA Secretary Bob McDonald to visit Hot Springs. Unfortunately, the visit didn't work, and soon after the Secretary signed an order finalizing the decision to close the majority of the facility. The battle wasn't over. In 2014, I had succeeded in attaching a measure to an appropriations legislation prohibiting the closure of the Hot Springs facility until a national VA realignment strategy was proposed. In each year, with appreciation to the Appropriations Committee, I have managed to renew this measure. And after a new VA Secretary--Secretary Robert Wilkie--took the helm, I repeatedly urged him to come to Hot Springs and to check out our facility for himself. Early this year, the Secretary announced that he would visit the facility in March. I then organized a letter with the rest of the South Dakota delegation strongly urging the Secretary to make time to sit down with Hot Springs veterans and other stakeholders and listen to their concerns about the planned closure. To our great gratitude, the Secretary agreed. Early in Secretary Wilkie's visit to Hot Springs on March 2, I requested that he revisit the order to close the facility signed over 3 years ago. A bit to our surprise and much to our relief, the Secretary agreed, reassuring us that the Hot Springs VA would remain open for our veterans. That meeting with veterans was pivotal. I worked hard in Congress-- along with other Members of the South Dakota delegation--to keep the Hot Springs facility open. But the campaign would never have succeeded without the passion of Hot Springs veterans and the Hot Springs community, which rallied in support of the facility and have proposed innovative ideas for the campus's future. And meeting with these veterans and other stakeholders and hearing their thoughts and stories played a major role in Secretary Wilkie's decision. Now, 2020 has been a tough year. But even in tough times, good things can happen. And last week's announcement that the VA has begun the formal process of rescinding its order to close the Hot Springs facility, expected to take 30 to 60 days, has given a lot of us reason for gratitude. I am thankful to Secretary Wilkie for taking a real look at South Dakota veterans' concerns and reversing the VA's decision to close the facility. And I look forward to celebrating with South Dakota veterans the next time I am in Hot Springs--or, as a lot of us know it, the ``Veterans Town.'

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), 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.