Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. committee on foreign relations Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 5, 2017 at 3 p.m., to conduct a classified briefing entitled ``Recent Administration Actions in Response to Russian Hacking and Harassment of U.S. Diplomats.'' select committee on intelligence Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 5, 2017, at 2 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the resolution we are moving to that will allow us to repeal and begin the replacement for the President's health care plan. A little over 3 years ago, President Obama hailed the start of the ObamaCare exchanges as a life-changing opportunity for Americans. For most Americans, it was life-changing, but it didn't turn out to be an opportunity. It was a life-changing experience because in many cases the insurance they had was no longer affordable, what they thought met their family's needs was no longer available, and the cost continues to go up. When President Obama pushed the health care law through Congress without a single Republican vote, he repeatedly assured Americans that they would be able to keep the plans they had, that they would be able to keep the doctors they had, and that every family would have a significant reduction in their health care costs. He continued to make every one of those commitments until the plan actually was put in place and it was obvious those commitments were not going to be what happened. By the end of 2013, at least 4.7 million Americans had their plans canceled because they didn't meet the law's mandatory requirements. Remember, these were plans that 4.7 million people thought met their individual needs, and they could afford those plans. That is why they bought them. They might not have been perfect. They might have still been a stretch on their budget, but they decided: This is insurance I can afford, and it is insurance that meets the needs that I can afford to meet with the insurance I can buy. The President's claims about everybody being able to keep their policies and keep their doctor were so far from reality that PolitiFact rated it as the lie of the year. I don't like to use that language as it relates to the President of the United States. I would say it must be really easy to become isolated in the Oval Office, and the President may get lots of information that sounds to him as if his plan is working, but the truth is that the President is not entitled to his own facts. He is entitled to his own opinion. He is entitled to his vision of what he thinks health care in America should look like, but he is not entitled to his own facts. If it is not happening the way he thinks it is happening, somebody needs to tell him. But, of course, in just a few days there will be a new President, and we have to deal with the chaos, frankly, that has been created under the old law. President Obama said this law would mean more choice, more competition, and lower costs for millions of Americans. Nobody can find those Americans. A number of Americans got on Medicaid, another government program, who weren't on Medicaid before. But there aren't millions of Americans who have more choices, and there aren't millions of Americans who have more competition for their business, and there aren't millions of Americans who have lower costs. In fact, just the opposite would be the case in Missouri, where I live. A number of insurers pulled out of the exchange totally. Our neighboring States all have the same experience and, in some cases, even worse experience, but the competition, the choices, just aren't there because the system doesn't work. We have 115 counties in our State, and in 97 of them, you have one choice; you have one insurer offering insurance. That one insurer may offer three different plans, but there is no competition for whatever level you are shopping for. There is only one place to get that level. This would be as if there is one shoe store in town and none of the shoes fit and they all cost too much, but if you didn't buy the shoes in that shoe store--and the chairman of the Budget Committee knows a lot about shoe stores--you would have to pay a penalty for not buying shoes that were available at that one location. Everybody would think: Well, that is unacceptable; you ought to at least be able to drive to another community and look for shoes. But that is not the case in 97 places, 97 counties. The vast majority of our State and a couple of States have no counties on the individual exchange that have competition. We went from several--every county a year ago in Missouri had at least two companies offering insurance, so there was at least a competitor. Some had more than two companies offering insurance. Now 97 have one company. The promise was to bend the cost curve. The cost curve bent, but it bent the wrong way. The cost curve went up; it didn't go down. In our State, again, increased premiums have been as high as 40 percent. In a number of States, they are in the 70-percent category. In one State, there is a 100-percent increase--not from when ObamaCare started but from last year--in places where the cost of insurance for individuals and families had too often already doubled, and now another add-on. I was with somebody the other day, and I asked them about their insurance. He was a healthy guy in his mid-40s. His wife and two daughters were healthy. I said: What are you doing for insurance? He said: I am self-employed. In 2009, there were four of us. We had insurance we thought met our needs. We were paying $300 a month. Now we are paying $1,190 a month, and we have a $7,500 deductible. If two of us are sick, we have to submit that deductible twice before we get any assistance from the insurance company--a $15,000 deductible if two people in the family are sick with a $1,190 monthly premium. This is a family that had no health care problems. This is not a response to somebody who has a policy that they were using. This is a policy that wasn't being used and, of course, with a $7,500 deductible unlikely to be used unless that family really has a catastrophic situation occur. What I believe that family found out a few months after I visited with them was that their policy went up closer to $2,000 than $1,190. The average deductible for a mid-level plan--there are the gold plan, silver plan, the bronze plan. For the silver plan, the average deductible in the exchange last year was $3,000. The average deductible in the bronze plan was $5,000, and it is higher than that for many people. To make matters worse, if you aren't able to afford the few options available on the exchange, you pay a penalty. So you have no competition. You are required to buy the product, and if you don't buy the product, there is a penalty. It could have been as much this year as $2,045, but if your option is to pay $15,000 or $20,000 for insurance that has this high deductible, that is what many people have decided to do. I have heard a lot of Missourians from the day this was initiated through today talking about the individual challenges they have seen. For example, Dave, a small business owner in Columbia, said that the premiums for his employees have doubled. Why would that be the case? One, the standards necessary for a policy change and, two, if you're losing all this money in the individual marketplace, the insurance companies make that up somewhere. So his premiums have doubled. At the same time, they have continually had to raise deductibles and seriously reduce benefits. The cost goes up and the coverage goes down. I think that is what President Clinton said when he said this is a crazy system. It is costing more all the time and covering less. That is what Dave has found out in his business, and he was told late last year that he should expect a 40-percent increase this year. He said: If that happens another time, we are no longer in the employee-employer provided insurance marketplace. Another location that serves our State and happens to be headquartered also in Columbia is the Older Americans Transportation System, a not-for-profit. They provide critical transportation services to older Missourians, and they have it other places in the country-- older Missourians to low-income people, to underserved parts of our State that don't have other transportation options. The costs to insure their drivers have gone up by half a million dollars. The paperwork to comply with the law's requirements, as the executive director told me, is so complex and cumbersome, they had to spend additional money to hire a consultant to implement a software program to help them keep up with the new mandates. It suddenly got even harder to be a not-for- profit and break even. Families and small businesses shouldn't be penalized because the law did not live up to its promise: If you like your health care, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Family costs will go down by $2,500 after this plan is put in place. Those things didn't happen. We are in a chaotic situation now, and it is time to move in a new direction. We will have a bill before us very shortly that will allow us to begin that transition to do things that will prevent Washington from getting in between health care providers and their patients. We will do things that will break down barriers that artificially restrict choice and prevent Americans from picking insurance that meets their family's needs that they can still pay for. What a concept that would be. This is basically the system we had before. It wasn't a perfect system, and I will say the biggest straw man put forward in that system was that nobody else had any ideas. There were plenty of other ideas, ideas that would better serve American families, American job creators, American job holders, people--plans that would have allowed small businesses to band together and become a bigger group to seek group insurance for a number of businesses instead of just one business's health savings account, better use of health savings accounts, buying across State lines, and things that I proposed specifically on letting your family stay on your insurance a little bit longer. Frankly, that was a 4-page bill that adds 3 million people to insurance every year so you can stay on your family policy until you are 26. There are four pages with a lot of white space. This does not have to be that complicated. There is no cost to taxpayers. Frankly, you are adding young, healthy people, not much cost to anybody but fundamentally no cost to taxpayers. It is just an additional way to look at things like buying insurance across State lines would be. There are solutions here, but we have been prevented from moving to those solutions. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that will allow us to move forward. We will begin to eliminate the chaos of ObamaCare and restore the focus of health care to patients, people, the doctors they want to have, and the places they want to go to get their health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, one way to be sure of not getting the work done we are doing today is to add another topic. I think the work we are doing today is important. My friend from Vermont mentioned some statistics that were right a couple of years ago about the decline in health care research money. We are not where we should be, but we are not where we were 2 years ago, either. When my side took control of the majority, I got a chance to chair the appropriating committee for Health and Human Services, and for the first time in 12 years, we had an almost 7-percent increase. The Senator is absolutely right--at that moment, we were 22 percent behind in research buying dollars from where we were 12 years earlier. But if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. So we did what the government should do and what people want the government to do: We went through the process of prioritizing. We eliminated 18 programs last year--zeroed them out for either being duplicative or not doing what they were designed to do--so we could prioritize exactly the important health care research this bill talks about and my friend from Vermont mentioned, a 7-percent increase last year and another 6.5-percent increase this year. Another $2 billion came out of our committee, came out of the full appropriating committee, and has been on the desk ready for the minority to let us take up for months now. That would be an almost 14-percent increase in 2 years. Fourteen percent of the 22 percent would have been eliminated if we could have taken up the bill that I still wish we were voting on today. The bill we are voting on today does some of what that baseline increase would do. Why do we want to increase health care research? Obviously for individuals and their families who might be able to better deal with or totally avoid a health care crisis they would otherwise have. From the point of view of taxpayers, on Alzheimer's, which was mentioned here today, we are spending $250 billion a year right now. The NIH projection for 2050 is that we will be spending $1.1 trillion that year in today's dollars, which is twice the defense budget. Now, $1.1 trillion sounds like a lot and $250 billion sounds like a lot to me. In fact, pretty small numbers sound like a lot to me. But when I think about spending twice the defense budget on Alzheimer's alone--and that is just tax dollars, that is not what families would be spending if we don't invest in research now. It makes a big difference. So from Alzheimer's--there is an inducement here that I would like to see be even more specific, and when we get back to the regular appropriating process, I will work to do that again. There is a prize inducement, the Beau Biden cancer research fund. There is money that could go to autism. Everything from Alzheimer's to autism benefits when we focus on health care research. There is also money in this bill to further enhance the ability to get drugs to the marketplace quicker so that people have an opportunity that they don't currently have to work with their doctor and decide they want to try that new advancement. This bill matters. I think in some ways it is better to let NIH--the real researchers--prioritize spending and let us prioritize research as a topic. I think this bill should pass. I think it should pass today. I was on the House floor last week when they overwhelmingly voted for it to pass. The sure way for this bill not to pass in this Congress is to do something now that changes the subject. I am particularly glad that my longtime friend from both the House and Senate is really interested in President Trump fulfilling his campaign pledges, and I am particularly pleased to see him agree with at least that one pledge, but that won't happen until next year. Today's work is to pass the 21st Century Cures bill. I look forward to the vote that will do that before we leave this week. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. In terms of the money available for research, we have taken that 22 percent of buying power and changed it to about 15 percent. If we doubled our bill this year, we would change it from 15 to about 7 or 8 percent. We need to get back to where we were 12 years ago and then not stop in real buying power. I want to do that. I think what I said about the overall discussion of reimportation and other things was that I was delighted to hear my friend from Vermont so supportive of the next President's program.

Mr. BLUNT. If my friend would yield, I would say we have passed this bill in the Congress--that bill--several times over the last few years. On each occasion, often with Democratic administrations, the only obstacle has been for the administration to certify that reimportation could be safely done.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I have one story I want to tell about Senator Coats. We have been able to serve together on the Intel Committee. We sit near each other on that committee. We work together on other things. I came to the Senate when Senator Coats came back to the Senate. It has already been established here that he served and then served in another capacity as Ambassador. Then in 2010, when the Presiding Officer and I came to the Senate, he came with us. In almost everything in the Senate, there is some element of seniority in how everything is done. As the only person in our class with prior Senate service, Dan Coats is the ranking member of our class. He was 88th in seniority in the Senate the day he started his second term of the Senate. For circumstances, I turned out to be 89th. In the process of going through and selecting offices, when they got to 88, Dan Coats called me, standing in the hallway of the Russell Senate Office Building, and he said: I am standing here in front of an office that says it was Harry Truman's office when he was in the Senate. You choose after me; don't you? I said: Yes, I choose after you. He said: If I don't take this office, will you take it? It was the best of the 12 offices still left. That wouldn't have been the reason I would take it, but I said: Yes, I will take that office. It would be great for me to be in an office in which Harry Truman had spent 10 years while in the Senate, and I later found out he also spent 82 days as Vice President in that office. I said: I will stay there if I take that office. I am actually the only Member who--every year when the question comes around ``Do you want to look at another office?'' I check the ``no'' box and send it right back. Almost everybody else checks the ``yes'' box because they want to see the real estate in the building that is available. I said: I will stay there if I take it. He said: Well, I am going to find an office somewhere else. I have chaired the Rules Committee in the last couple of years. I deal with lots of Members about lots of requests. I don't actually know of very many similar circumstances. In fact, I don't know of any exactly like that one where Senator Coats said: I want you to have the office. I mentioned it to him again the other day, and he said: You know, the reason for that was, it was the right thing to do. If there is any part of Dan Coats' character that comes through time after time, it is that part. It is that part of who he is that always wants to do the right thing. He is a man of great conscience, of great courage, of great willingness to serve. He is a good friend, and it has been one of the honors of my life in elected office that I have gotten to spend 6 years working in the Senate with him.

Mr. BLUNT. I would say that the one thing we will accomplish before the week is out is passing this bill, but I hope this bill doesn't become something that we continue to refer back to and say we have already done that. This bill is a step in the right direction, but in health care research, it does not get us to where I would like to be or where we were 12 years ago. We need the kind of research dollars that encourage young researchers to stay in the research business, the kind of research dollars that encourage them to find solutions, the kind of research dollars that ensure that every family who can avoid a crisis or be ready to deal with it in a better way is able to do that. So I look forward to the bill being passed as we finish the week. I yield back.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, as we send troops into harm's way--and as you personally well know--it is our job to ensure that they have the tools and the resources they need to carry out the mission they are asked to carry out. We never want Americans to be involved in a fair fight. We always want them be involved in an unfair fight where they have every possible advantage. It doesn't always work out that way, but it should always be our goal. That is what the Defense authorization bill is designed to do. This will be the 55th consecutive year that the Congress has passed and the Senate has passed the National Defense Authorization Act. The leadership of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Jack Reed makes it possible for us to be here one more time, emphasizing that the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government is to defend the country. It is hard to find a bill that we pass every year for more than half a century, but this critical piece of legislation provides the vision and the authorization necessary for the military to move forward and to do that No. 1 job of defending America. There has been--and I think today we will see that again in the vote on this bill--the strong, bipartisan support that this bill always receives. Although there is sometimes a discussion about when it should be passed, we have not failed to pass it in a long time. It includes a lot of provisions that I think will make a big difference. One is a pay raise for our troops, which they deserve. It is the largest pay increase in the last 6 years, and it begins to fulfill our commitment to those who currently serve. As well, we need to fulfill our commitment to those who have served. I am also glad that there is a vital project for the Nation that happens to be located in my State, in St. Louis, MO. The final version of this bill includes authorization for the land acquisition for the National Geospatial movement from the south part of St. Louis, where it has been for seven decades, to a new location that allows them to build a facility, as it is right now, that is fully backing up the only other facility in the world that does the level of geospatial work that this one does. When something happens in Springfield, VA, where that location isn't monitoring the world as it usually does, all of that work goes to St. Louis, where on every other day they share the responsibility for geospatial. There is a provision in here, at a fundamental level of safety, to build a fire station at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. Everything from building a fire station to creating a $1.7 billion facility that allows us to further keep an eye on the world as we do now is a good thing. It also addresses the issue that was raised earlier this year concerning members of the National Guard--men and women who were given a bonus and then wrongfully asked to return that bonus. It was not their error. That money in most families long ago has been spent. It was thought to be appropriately handed over to them, and they shouldn't be penalized because other people made a mistake when that distribution was made. With this bill, they will not be penalized. I think there is an increase here in end strength. It is in the conference report. I certainly supported Senator Moran's efforts on this issue and commend him for the hard work he put forward to be sure that we don't lose any more ground on the strength we have and the ability we have to be ready. Making down payments on our readiness issues, stabilizing our force at a time when we really face more challenges around the world--not less--was a minimum thing for us to do, but the bill does that. Senator Moran's leadership was important in accomplishing that as well. Once again, this bill puts Congress on record against the President's plan to move terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to any location on U.S. soil. I, along with a majority of Americans, oppose the idea that we bring these terrorists here. The President made a campaign pledge a decade ago now, and 10 years later, not only has that campaign pledge not been able to be fulfilled but the Congress once again today asserts our view that it should not be fulfilled. The administration admitted earlier this year that Americans have been killed by terrorists released from Guantanamo, and they made that admission, by the way, days before they approved another dozen inmates to transfer somewhere else in the world, where I don't think they can be kept count of and track of like they need to be. We don't need to close this facility. We don't need to abandon the facility, and I am glad that there are strict prohibitions here that don't allow that to happen. This bill also makes important steps toward enhancing the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. GEN Ray Odierno, recently retired, Chief of Staff of the Army, said that the strength of the military is in military families, and we need to do a better job recognizing that. I hope we are able to advance an effort that was in the Senate bill that didn't get into the final bill--the Military Family Stability Act--next year. This is an action that will allow military families to stay longer at a location or to move earlier than the individual in the military does if there is a professional reason or an educational reason for that to happen. The investment that military families have made in the country and the investment they have made in what the person serving has learned in a very complicated defense world don't need to be unnecessarily complicated by whether someone gets to finish a year in elementary school or gets to stay another 3 months so they can graduate from high school, particularly if the person in the military is willing to go on ahead and bear their own expense until the family, with the family assistance that families get or the living assistance, moves later. This was determined by everybody that looked at it, except the Pentagon, to have no cost. I asked every senior officer who came before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about this concept of making it a little easier for people to stay, for a spouse who needed to go ahead and move a little early to start that teaching year at a new school, to get a job that was available at a hospital, or to do whatever that spouse could do to continue to have their professional career. I asked officer after officer: What do you think about this? One after another, they all said: This is exactly the kind of investment we need to make. We didn't quite get there in this bill, and I am grateful that Senator McCain has pledged to work further to study why the Pentagon itself--or at least the Department of Defense at the highest levels--is the only place that thinks this would cost anything or would be too much trouble. It wouldn't be too much trouble. I hope to see it in the bill next year. Someone who has really helped in my ability to look at this bill, with the work that I do as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and with the work that we do with great military facilities in our State, is here on the floor today, MAJ Andy Anderson. He has been a great resource to our office, and we have benefited for some time now of having military fellows come in and spend a year with us. I continue to hear from them that it is also a great benefit to them to see how this part of the process of preparing to do what is necessary to help them defend the country works. The knowledge and experience that Major Anderson has gained as an Army officer helped in discussions we had both in the State and in the Nation. I have been particularly appreciative of his willingness to go beyond what might be considered the typical duties of a military fellow in a Senate office. For instance, he has taken personal interest and has been instrumental in assisting a Missouri family in getting their father's remains returned home from Laos after having been shot down over Laos during the Vietnam war. He has devoted a lot of time to gathering and analyzing data on legislative history and actions that will continue to be critical to the office moving forward. I want to also thank his family and wish him the best as he and his wife Audra and their sons Reid and Joel go to what military assignment they have next. This bill renews the Iran Sanctions Act, and the Iran Sanctions Act would have expired at the end of the year. I am hopeful that the administration understands that this act is really a foundational element of the regime that they entered into. It was an agreement that I didn't support. I still don't support it, but extending the Iran Sanctions Act is perfectly consistent with what the Iran nuclear agreement purports to do. If the Iran Sanctions Act is a problem, the Iran nuclear agreement is just as bad as I thought it was. When that agreement was completed, the administration repeatedly promised that U.S. sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism would remain in place under the agreement. For example, the day the agreement was announced, President Obama himself said that we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran's support of terrorism. The administration continues to recognize the Iranian state as the leading state sponsor of terrorism. This Iran Sanctions Act extension sends another message to Iran that the Congress and the country of the United States are paying attention. It gives the next administration a powerful tool to hold Iran responsible, and I certainly urge the President to sign this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. In conclusion, once again, for 55 years in a row, the Congress of the United States is going to make the point that the No. 1 obligation of the Federal Government is to defend the country, and this bill helps to allow that to happen. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just say that if the Secretary of HHS can certify that, that is a good thing, and I voted for that in the past. But I know what a tomato looks like. I don't know what is inside a capsule, and that has always been the obstacle for the people we have asked to look at this and certify the safety. If people can figure out how to do that so we know what is inside of that pill--the worst thing you can do health-wise is believe you are taking a pill that isn't the pill you believe you are taking.

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

Mr. BLUNT. And none of them have ever been willing to do that.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the military fellow from our office, MAJ Andy Anderson, be given floor privileges for the consideration of H.R. 34.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few moments talking about National Adoption Month. I thank the Senator from Maryland and my colleagues for letting me talk for a few minutes about an issue that I think every single Member of the Senate cares about. The month of November is National Adoption Month. It gives us the opportunity to recognize the recent celebration of National Adoption Day, which was November 19. As cochair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, I have had the opportunity to work with so many of our Members and understand the broad bipartisan support for what we need to do to be looking at and more dedicated to adoption and to child welfare issues. Last year, Senator Klobuchar and I came to this new role as the Senate's cochairmen of this caucus. I am pleased to be working with her on a resolution that would support National Adoption Month and National Adoption Day again this year. We also have the good fortune to work with Members of the House. The idea that every child deserves to grow up in a loving, safe family is something I think we can all agree on. We have a lot of agreement, while we have been working with Members of the Congress, on adoption issues over the last year. Just last week, Senator Klobuchar, Congressman Trent Franks, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, and others, along with me, finalized a comment letter to the U.S. Department of State expressing concern over new international adoption regulations. We have specifically highlighted the negative impact some of the Department's proposed changes could have on the adoption process. Lately, the adoption process seems to have become more complicated internationally, and we need to make it less complicated. We worked--many Members, including the Members I just mentioned--very hard on behalf of families who have currently been trying to resolve pending adoption cases from a number of countries, most recently finalizing adoptions out of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nepal, Uganda, Guatemala, and other countries as well. In June Senator Klobuchar and I introduced the Vulnerable Children and Families Act, which would help more children living without families or in institutional care to find permanent homes by enhancing our U.S. diplomatic efforts rather than making those efforts more difficult. We need to enhance what we do as a country. We need to enhance what we do through the State Department to where we are more focused on international child welfare, ensuring that intercountry adoption to the United States becomes a more viable and more fully developed option. I am also continuing to support legislation to ensure that American families have the resources and support they need so that adoption domestically works. Specifically, there is the Adoption Tax Credit Refundability Act and the Supporting Adoptive Families Act. Before I conclude, I want to make a few comments to highlight three stories of foster children in Missouri who are currently waiting to get the family they would hope to have forever. According to the Missouri Heart Gallery, more than 1,200 Missouri children are in need of permanent homes. One of those children is Jason, age 15, who is an expressive young guy and, in his own words, ``likes to play soccer when it is not too hot.'' He also likes art and music. He feels like he is creative. He is looking for a supportive family to call his own, one who will also help him stay in contact with his brothers and sisters. Michelle, who is 9 years old, loves to dance and hopes to have her own pets in the future. However, she will tell you she would really rather have a dog than a cat. But what she would really like to find is a family--a family where she could have sisters, a family who would allow her to stay in touch with her biological sister as well. Lastly, Terrance, age 13, and Terion, age 10, are brothers with a special bond. When you first meet Terrance, he appears shy, but after getting to know him, he really has an incredible sense of humor. He enjoys listening to music, sports, and playing outside. Terion has a smile that just goes on and on. He is very active. He has been on a Little League Baseball team, and he loves to bowl. The brothers are strongly committed to each other. They have a strong bond to each other, beyond just the normal bond of brothers. They want to find a home where they can stay forever and stay together. Last year, I shared the stories of these two siblings on the Senate Floor. They are still looking for a family to call their own. Like so many children across the United States, Jason, Michelle, Terrance, and Terion are in need of a permanent, safe, loving home as a launching pad for their lives. I am an adoptive parent. I am always encouraged to see families giving children the most important gift one can give somebody else, and that is a family. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Klobuchar and me in marking November as National Adoption Month by passing this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am pleased to be here to talk about this bill. First of all, following up on what my friend just talked about on opioid abuse, I want to particularly thank the Chair for her leadership on this issue. Really, as the chairman of the appropriating committee that looked at this before we had any legislation, it was largely the Chair's effort that made us triple the amount of money we were committing to this cause over a year ago. I thank her for understanding this and advocating for it as one of the two or three earliest Members to bring to the attention of the Senate that this is a problem that affects rural America, urban America, small States, and big States. I thank her for her leadership. Because of that, last year we had a 284-percent increase in the money committed to that. We doubled that amount again this year. Assuming we are able to move forward with the Labor, Health and Human Services bill this year, it will be virtually a 600-percent increase. We are already halfway there, and that first half was largely because of the Presiding Officer's understanding of this issue, and I am grateful for that. Madam President, on the bill before the body today, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Gold Star Families Voices Act. The legislation passed the House unanimously in September. I hope the Senate will do the same today. In 2000, Congress created the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress. That project was designed to collect and catalog the stories of American war veterans. The purpose of the project was ``to preserve the memories of this Nation's war veterans so that Americans of all current and future generations may hear directly from veterans and better appreciate the realities of war and the sacrifices made by those who served in uniform during wartime.'' To date, the Veterans History Project has collected the oral history records of over 100,000 veterans who have served in the military since World War I--100,000 stories preserved that wouldn't have been otherwise. As important and extensive as that project is, as important as those 100,000 memories are, today the project only includes firsthand narratives. Now, what does that mean? That means that only people who are telling their own story are included in the stories we have created and have been able to secure because of the Veterans History Project, which effectively excludes the stories of veterans who didn't return from the battlefield--the men and women who lost their lives defending this country. This legislation would ensure the stories of veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice would now be included in the archives. How would this work? This bill would allow the family members of veterans who are missing in action or who have died as a result of their service to participate in the project and tell the stories of their loved ones. Immediate family members who can participate include parents, spouses, siblings, and children of veterans who were not able to tell their own story. We wouldn't be who we are today if it wasn't for the acts of courage and selflessness of our fallen heroes. We owe it to them, but we also owe it to their families to know of their names, their deeds, the honorable service they gave the country, and we need to preserve those memories. The families of these fallen heroes are in the best position to share their stories so future generations of Americans may never forget the people we owe our freedom to and have not been able to have their story told up until now. I think this legislation will make a great program even better and hope my colleagues will agree. I thank the American Gold Star mothers for fighting to make this bill a priority. I thank Congressman Chris Smith, who introduced this legislation in the House and who has been its ultimate champion. I was happy to be able to lead this bill through the Rules Committee. I urge all my colleagues to join me today in helping to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice and make sure their stories and those of their loved ones become part of this historic record. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask that the Gold Star Families Voices Act be reported.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, over the last several years, when Missourians and people across the country open their newspapers or watch the news, they are bombarded with reports that make them feel anxious about the direction of our Nation and the future our children and grandchildren will inherit. At times like these, when we are filled with anxiety and uncertainty, it is important to remind ourselves of the good done by great Americans in their communities. One man or woman can make a tangible difference to improve the lives of many. Today I want to recognize one such a great American, as well as Missouri native, Ewing Marion Kauffman, on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Residents of Kansas City knew and still know Ewing Marion Kauffman well. They are reminded of his lasting legacy every time they see the work of the Kauffman Foundation or when they visit Kauffman Stadium-- ``The K''--to see the Kansas City Royals. However, Mr. Kauffman is perhaps best known for his vision that a quality education is the foundation for self-sufficiency, and he used philanthropy to help foster a society of economically independent individuals who are actively engaged in their communities. Indeed, Mr. Kauffman's vision has left an indelible mark on the lives of so many. By way of background, Ewing Marion Kauffman was born on September 21, 1916, on a farm in Garden City, MO. The son of John and Effie May, the Kauffman family moved to Kansas City when Ewing was just a boy--a place he called home the rest of his life. Ewing Kauffman was from the generation that weathered the Great Depression. As a boy, he helped his family make ends meet by selling eggs and magazines door to door, even diving into muddy underwater burrows to catch catfish so he could sell them. During World War II, he served his country in defense of freedom by joining the U.S. Navy. When the war ended, Ewing Kauffman became a salesman for a pharmaceutical company. A born salesman, by the end of his second year, he is said to have earned more in commissions alone than the salary of the president of the company he worked for. In 1950, Mr. Kauffman struck out and started his own pharmaceutical company: Marion Laboratories. A few things to note about Marion Laboratories. First, there was no lab. Ewing Kauffman founded this startup in his basement. Second, in a field that requires huge amounts of capital in scientific research, Mr. Kauffman's ``research division'' consisted of him reading medical journals. As one biographer noted: ``He was in a business that was rooted in science and fueled by research, and he had only a smattering of the former and could not afford the latter.'' What Mr. Kauffman had in spades, however, was an innate understanding of marketing and an ability to sell a product. Why call his new startup ``Marion Laboratories?'' He used his middle name to suggest that it wasn't a one-man operation. How good a salesman was he? In its first year, Marion Labs made $36,000 in sales. By the time he sold the company in 1989, it made $1 billion in sales and employed over 3,400 people. Ewing Kauffman's philosophy in life can be summed up in three basic principles he adhered to: First, treat others as you want to be treated. Second, share life's rewards with those who make them possible. Third, give back to society. Actions speak louder than words, and it is easy to find examples of Mr. Kauffman's actions that support the principles by which he lived. A popular boss who treated all his employees with dignity and respect, his employees affectionately took to simply calling him Mr. K. In terms of sharing life's rewards, he offered his employees a profit- sharing plan, stock options, and education benefits. By 1968, 20 of Marion's employees had become millionaires--and reportedly, hundreds had become millionaires by 1989. But what really makes Ewing Kauffman stand out was his commitment to his third principle: Giving back to society. There is not enough time to recount all of the work Mr. K did for Kansas City. He was passionate about improving lives and helping to make Kansas City a better place to live and work. I want to take a moment to highlight just a few of his contributions. First, in 1968, he brought Major League Baseball back to Kansas City. The unique thing about this is that he acquired the team for the benefit of the city. The Kansas City Royals provided the community with a sense of pride, solidarity, and identity. This is all the more true given the Royals' success--they have won six American League West titles, two pennants, participated in four World Series, and won two World Series championships in 1985 and 2015. Second, in 1966, he founded the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a philanthropic organization committed to helping people through education and entrepreneurship and changing the trajectory of their lives. Always cognizant of the need to create more and better paying jobs, Kauffman saw education and entrepreneurship as two ends of a continuum. As such, he directed the foundation's mission to be one that helps individuals attain economic independence by advancing educational achievement and entrepreneurial success. Today the Kauffman Foundation is among the largest private foundations in the U.S., with an asset base of approximately $2 billion, and it sponsors dozens of fundraisers every year to support other nonprofits, funding organizations that accelerate positive change where it is needed most. Lastly, I want to highlight something really unique. In 1988, Mr. Kauffman went to Kansas City Westport High School--the school he graduated from in 1934--to launch Project Choice. By the late 1980s, Westport High School was plagued with a 30-percent dropout rate, and the disadvantaged students who attended had to contend with the scourge of serious drug and alcohol abuse. Project Choice was a deal Mr. K struck with 250 eighth graders who were about to attend Westport High School. Ewing Kauffman offered the students--with the involvement of their parents--a 4-year scholarship to the college, university, or vocational school of their choice, including costs of tuition, books, fees, and room and board. What was the catch you might ask? Each child must graduate from high school in 4 years, have regular attendance, no serious disciplinary problems, and abstain from drugs and alcohol. Additionally, their parents had to agree to meet regularly with their children's teachers, coaches, and counselors and participate in school activities. When asked why he was taking this initiative, Mr. K responded: ``We have racial discrimination now. We have economic discrimination now . . . the answer to social and economic injustice is education.'' He later expanded Project Choice to other schools across the Kansas City area. In 2001, after learning from both successes and challenges with Project Choice, the Kauffman Foundation updated the program to emphasize college access, college preparation, and college graduation as part of its Kauffman Scholars Program. In short, through its many programs, initiatives, and grants, the Kauffman Foundation embodies Mr. K's principles. Through its research and programs, the foundation continues to work to increase the percentage of students who achieve successful academic and life outcomes--to create the self-reliant human capital necessary for entrepreneurial success. Ewing Kauffman saw himself as a common man who did uncommon things. He constantly challenged those around him to reach their full potential and improve the lives of their families and communities. He built a lasting legacy in Kansas City. Each one of us is capable of doing the same if we live by his principles: to treat others as you would like to be treated, to share life's rewards with those who make them possible, and to give back to society. That philosophy is perhaps his greatest legacy, and it is a legacy this body should recognize because those principles--combined with a commitment to education and entrepreneurship--are what make good citizens great.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, earlier this year, I got the news that my good friend, Dean Tom Payne, had announced that he would be retiring from the MU College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources and vice chancellor for Agriculture. Needless to say, I had mixed emotions. I am happy that Tom will get to spend more time with his beautiful wife, Alice, and his children, Joanna and Jacob, and Jacob's wife, Jennifer. Of course, I am also happy that Caroline and Jack, his grandchildren, will get to see him more. However, his retirement also made me think that someone will have big shoes to fill because Dean Payne has set high standards throughout the years and exceeded them. Dean Thomas L. Payne has served as vice chancellor for Agriculture and dean of the MU College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources since January 1, 1999. Back then he knew that the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri in Columbia was a leader in agriculture research and education. Today under Dean Payne's leadership, the MU College of Agriculture is at the forefront. Dean Payne was born in Bakersfield, CA. He received his B.A. in zoology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his M.S. in entomology and Ph.D. in entomology and physiological psychology from the University of California, Riverside. Payne took his talents to Texas A&M University's departments of entomology and forest science. He started his track record in leadership, academics, and research. The U.S. Department of Agriculture selected him to serve as the research coordinator for the Southern Pine Beetle Program. He became a professor and head of entomology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In the midnineties, Tom was appointed as associate vice president for agricultural administration and associate dean for research at the Ohio State University's College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences. He was also the director of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. He then moved to the University of Missouri, Columbia and further solidified his leadership in research and academics. In addition to serving as vice chancellor and dean of the MU College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, he also became the director of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. The Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station is a network of centers conducting research in agriculture, animal science, natural resources, and forestry. Of course, Dean Payne is an overachiever. He is the author and coauthor of more than 130 publications and is founding coeditor of the Journal of Insect Behavior. He is a recipient of numerous awards including the Alexander von Humbolt Prize and Missouri Future Farmers of America Association Distinguished Service Award. If all that wasn't enough, Dean Payne has been a member of the World Agricultural Forum's Board of Advisors, Danforth Plan Sciences Center's Board of Advisors, Agriculture Future of America's Board of Directors, and a board member of the Entomological Foundation. There are few people who are able to figure out what they love to do and make such a successful career out of doing just that. However, Dean Tom Payne is one such person who has had a career doing what he loves, but in addition, have a tremendous impact on students, peers, and all those that know him. Dean Payne has had a career preparing, showing, teaching, and leading students and faculty. I am confident that there are many individuals who would credit Dean Payne for their interest in agriculture, especially agriculture research. He has always had a passion for what he does--and not matter what, he always has his wit and humor. I have seen his wit and humor bring tears and laughter. I have also seen individuals nervous as they waited to hear Dean Payne speak, wondering what zingers he might say. I can promise you, he knows how to hold his audience's attention--students or career professionals. My friend, Dean Tom Payne, has always provided insight and leadership at each institution he worked, committee seat he held, and board on which he served. I know that at the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Dean Payne has left his mark on the student population, research programs, and faculty members. Student enrollment in the college increased by 44 percent. Student participation in study abroad programs increased 50 percent. He contributed to making the Bond Life Sciences Center a reality. Plant and animal sciences continued to enhance its programmatic strength, so it is now ranked among the 15 best programs in the world. And he oversaw the hiring of more than half of the college's current faculty. Again I say, Dean Payne has left big shoes to fill. In his retirement, I am confident Dean Payne will play more golf, but I am not certain it will improve his game. He might even do some more hunting and fishing. I hope he will continue to be a resource for those in agriculture, especially agriculture research and education. Missourians wish Dean Tom Payne all the best in his retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am here today to urge our colleagues to support the Water Resources Development Act. Missouri has more than 1,000 miles of navigable waterways that transport over $4 billion worth of cargo every year. I will say for the benefit of the Presiding Officer that it is hard at this moment not to stop and talk about what the EPA thinks navigable waters should be and what navigable waters have always been thought to be in Federal law. My State has 1,000 miles of those waterways--as I have just said, $4 billion a year. There is no reason, with world food demand anticipated to double between now and 35 or 40 years from now, with people wanting to bring some manufacturing jobs and hopefully lots of manufacturing jobs back to this country, that $4 billion number won't be much bigger than that over the next few years, and so this bill really matters. Maintaining and improving our waterways and the infrastructure surrounding our waterways is critically important. The Mississippi River Valley is the biggest piece of contiguous agricultural ground in the would. One of the great benefits of the interior port system is it is a port system that uniquely supports some of the most productive agricultural land anywhere in the world but also that it is a natural network that has allowed our country to compete in the way it did early and the way it can now. So it is important that we maintain that system. We also need to think about--if we have the blessings of the waterways, we also have the challenges of the waterways--protecting families in Missouri and families in other places from natural disasters. In our State, we had a surprise flood in December. It is not the only time we have ever had a New Year's Eve flood, but it is not something we anticipate. It was very big, very destructive, and very localized. So managing that is a critically important part of what happens in the Water Resources Development Act. This is a step to prioritize these resources so that once again we are thinking about why we have flood protection, navigation, and water projects. Specifically, in our State this bill authorizes a number of projects in the Kansas City area. The Kansas City levees themselves started in the 1940s, while maybe Harry Truman was using the desk I stand behind right now or the office I now get to use in the Russell Building, maybe while he was President and Vice President. These were projects that took about 40 years to build and now need to be actively maintained. The Kansas City levees, the Turkey Creek Basin, the Swope Park Industrial Area, and the Blue River Basin are flood control projects that protect lots of jobs and protect lots of families and in some cases ensure that the waterway can be used for navigation and still have the proper emphasis we want to have on conservation and wildlife. The bill funds much needed drinking water and clean water programs. In so many cases, the infrastructure we have in this country below ground is even more challenged than the infrastructure we have aboveground. It is not just about using the waterways for the drinking water that is provided to many communities from the rivers--the Missouri River is a drinking water source for people who live in the Missouri State capital, and it is a drinking water source for people up and down the river in many communities. This bill focuses not only on that traditional system but also provides some additional assistance for challenged communities, for communities that need to replace lead pipes, so that through this bill communities can work on better ways to solve the important infrastructure problems they have. The bill authorizes $25 million for the dredging of small ports on the Mississippi River System. In the last Congress, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and I--Senator Harkin has now retired, but Senator Klobuchar stepped up to cochair with me the Mississippi River Caucus that looks at the river as the asset it is. As we try to take traffic off the highway system and off the rail system and put it on the water, if it is going to be on the water sooner rather than later, all these ports matter. So this bill takes a further step in encouraging looking at the small ports, the interior ports, the almost totally export ports. There is nothing wrong with buying things from other people, but actually, economically, there is a tremendous, positive advantage to selling things to other people, and that is what the interior port system is all about. Not only is it an export port system, it basically serves twice the land mass of a coastal port. If a coastal port effectively serves 250 or 300 miles inland, the Mississippi River port would serve that same amount in all directions, 300 miles each way. So looking at those ports not for specifically the individual tonnage that might go out of the port but how they fit into a whole system is very important. In many instances, the Corps said: Well, they do not export a million tons, so we don't want to dredge that port because it is only a 900,000-ton port. But I think we need to look at this in different ways, and this bill creates the opportunity to do that. There is another measure that has an impact very close to where I live, Springfield, MO--Table Rock Lake. It is not on the lake but several miles from the lake. Owners there are worried that the Corps is not listening as it comes up with a shoreline management plan. If you don't live on the shore or if you aren't affected by the economy of the lake, it may not matter much, but it matters a lot if you are in one of those two categories. These plans don't come along very often, and so this measure addresses the concerns property owners have that they are simply not being listened to. The public and those directly affected by changes in the plan for things such as awarding boat dock permits and shoreline zoning need to have a say in what that plan will look like for a long time because once these plans are in place, the Corps always has many reasons not to look at the shoreline management plans. The extra time here creates a comment period that lets the affected people be heard. I will say on this topic that when you talk to the Corps about variations in the plan, there are always a thousand reasons they can't make one. Their view is, this is a plan that took a lot of time to put in place. Well, this bill says: OK, we would agree with that. Let's take the necessary time to put it in place. I am also glad to see that this measure ensures that a community affordability study which I drafted some language on and which we put in the Interior appropriations bill last year will be put to use by the EPA. What is a community affordability study? If you have water issues in your community--if the drinking water system has a problem, if the storm water system has a problem--if you have water issues in your community, there are often reasonable caps that say: If the Federal Government comes in and tells you that you have to do something, they have to give you enough time so that the community can afford it. Maybe that cap is no more than 4 percent or some percentage a year would be the cap on raising your water bill year after year. Well, if you raise it 4 percent a year, it doesn't take long before it is 40 percent higher than it was and then 50 percent higher than it was. That is a cap that somebody looked at, studied, and thought that even though communities never like to do this, maybe this is something communities can live with. But what if you have two or three of those instances that occur at the same time? So what this bill does is further encourage the EPA to do something that the municipal league is really for and that my hometown of Springfield, MO, has encouraged and has been a proponent and drafter of, and that is, you have to look at the total impact on ratepayers before you tell a community they have to do something. You can put people in unbelievable economic stress by just deciding that whatever the Federal Government wants to do is what the Federal Government gets to do no matter what impact it has on that community. That sort of integrated permitting will give communities what they need to really make the changes they need to make in a way the community can live with and deal with and, more importantly, families in the community can live with. This has some bipartisan compromise language that I have long supported to encourage the safe disposal of coal ash. I have heard from rural electric utilities that the rules handed down by EPA are too harsh. The language here will help address those concerns in a bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I am grateful for the leadership we have seen from Senator Inhofe, the chairman, and the ranking member, Senator Boxer, who served previously as the chairman of this committee. They have come together with a bipartisan package that makes sense and that impacts the lives of families, that has an impact on our economy and allows these projects to have a future they otherwise wouldn't have and new rules to be put in place that wouldn't be put in place. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of Cape Girardeau, MO, for his service and dedication to the State Historical Society of Missouri. Judge Limbaugh is completing his final term as president of the society after a distinguished tenure leading the board of trustees. He is the first leader in the society's 118-year history to serve two terms as president. It has been my pleasure to work with him as a member of the board of trustees. Judge Limbaugh's election as president of the State Historical Society of Missouri 6 years ago follows in the footsteps of his grandfather, Rush H. Limbaugh I, who served as vice president of the society during the 1940s. Judge Limbaugh has been a guiding force in expanding the society's network of research centers to Cape Girardeau and Springfield. In addition, he facilitated an agreement with the University of Missouri that gave the State Historical Society ``sole responsibility'' for the management of the Western Historical Manuscript Collection. Judge Limbaugh successfully launched the Center for Missouri Studies, an educational initiative to advance the study of Missouri's history and culture with competitive, interdisciplinary fellowships. He worked unwaveringly to ensure passage of a bill in the Missouri General Assembly to finance the construction of the Center in Columbia, MO, which was agreed to in 2015. The building project begins a new era for the State Historical Society of Missouri and greatly enhances the Society's mission to collect, preserve, publish, and showcase material that features all of Missouri's unique history. The leadership and dedication that Judge Limbaugh, Jr., demonstrates as president of the society is the same leadership and dedication he demonstrates in his personal and public life. He studied at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX, and went on to earn his master of laws in judicial process degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. He was elected prosecuting attorney of Cape Girardeau County in 1978 at the age of 26, after beginning his legal career with the family firm of Limbaugh, Limbaugh, and Russell. After serving a 4-year term, he returned to private practice until 1987, when he was appointed circuit judge for the 32nd Judicial Circuit. Judge Limbaugh held this position until he was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1992. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., served for 16 years as a judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri, including a 2-year term as chief justice. He was recognized among his colleagues for his sound interpretation of the law and compassion for his fellow Missourians. In 2007, Limbaugh was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with unanimous consent on June 10, 2008. The judge's tireless dedication to public service has been recognized by the American College of Trial Lawyers, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, the Adoption and Foster Care Coalition of Missouri, the National Eagle Scout Association, Professional Blackmen's Club of Southeast Missouri, and Rotary International. He is the author of numerous historical works, including ``The Antebellum History of Centenary Church of Cape Girardeau.'' I am confident Judge Limbaugh will always continue to study Missouri's vibrant history and heritage and share his knowledge with individuals and groups across the great State. In October, Judge Limbaugh will be awarded the Missouri Historical Society's Distinguished Service Award and Medallion for his significant and lasting contributions to preserving Missouri's history and fostering recognition for Missouri's distinct role in our Nation's history. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., has played a major role in the success of the State Historical Society of Missouri. His legacy will continue to impact future generations through the programs and partnerships he helped put in place. I am grateful for his friendship, and I thank him for his service to the country, citizens of Missouri, and the State Historical Society of Missouri.

Mr. BLUNT

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