[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3011-S3018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1144. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage business creation by allowing faster recovery of start-up and
organizational expenses, to simplify accounting methods for small
businesses, to expand expensing and provide accelerated cost recovery
to encourage investment in new plants and equipment, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the last 8 years
were not good ones for the American economy. Yearly economic growth
under the Obama administration averaged just under 1.5 percent. That is
less than half the growth needed for a healthy economy. That kind of
weak growth has consequences: fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and
lower wages.
Wage growth was almost nonexistent during the Obama administration,
and new jobs and opportunities were few and far between. There have
been a few encouraging signs since the election. Both wage and job
growth have shown some improvement, but we are still a long way from
getting our economy back to full health. The GDP report for the first
quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the kind of
progrowth policies that were lacking during the Obama years.
One major way to spur economic growth and improve the health of our
economy is to reform our Nation's Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is
strangling businesses, both large and small. Our Nation has the highest
corporate tax rate in the developed world, putting American businesses
at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.
Small businesses and family farms face high tax rates, at times
exceeding those paid by large corporations. These tax policies have
consequences. A small company that owes a large tax bill to the Federal
Government is unlikely to be able to come up with the capital necessary
to expand the business or hire new workers.
When American businesses are taxed at a far higher rate than their
foreign counterparts, it is likely to be the foreign rather than the
American company that expands and thrives. Tax reform needs to address
these obstacles to growth. Later this year, the Senate plans to
consider a major tax reform package. Two of the most powerful tax-
related things we can do to increase economic growth are lowering
business tax rates and allowing business to recover their investments
in inventory, machinery, and the like faster.
The Senate tax bill will do both. Today, I am introducing legislation
that I hope will be a part of the final tax reform package in the
Senate. My bill--I am calling it the Investment in New Ventures and
Economic Success Today Act, or the INVEST Act for short--focuses on
helping small- and medium-sized businesses by allowing them to recover
their costs faster.
Earlier this year, the Economic Innovation Group released a report on
economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group
defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and
die. In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high
and significantly outstrips the rate of business deaths, but that
hasn't been the case in the United States lately.
New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several
years. Between 2009 and 2011, business deaths outstripped business
births. While the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery
has been poor and far from historical norms.
The Economic Innovation Group notes that 2012, the economy's best
year for business creation since the recession, ``fell far short of its
worst year prior to 2008.'' Well, this is deeply concerning because new
businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of
the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of
innovation.
When new businesses are not being created at a strong rate, workers
face a whole host of problems. A less dynamic economy--the Economic
Innovation Group notes--``is one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower
labor force participation, slack wage growth, and rising inequality,
exactly what we see today.''
[[Page S3012]]
Again, that is from the Economic Innovation Group.
Well, starting a new business always has a substantial element of
risk. We don't need to make it harder by throwing up tax and regulatory
obstacles. If we want to see our economy thriving again, we need to be
encouraging the creation of new businesses, but our Tax Code, too
often, does the opposite.
My bill, the INVEST Act, would encourage new business creation by
allowing new enterprises to deduct a substantial part of their startup
costs within the first year. Under current law, new businesses are only
able to deduct $5,000 of their startup costs within their first year.
Any startup expenses above that amount can be deducted, but that
deduction is stretched out over a 15-year period. That is a long time.
The faster a new business can recover its startup costs, the faster
it can establish itself on a secure footing. Entrepreneurs are far more
likely to take the risk of starting a new venture if they know they
will be able to recover their startup costs quickly. My bill would
substantially increase the amount of a business's startup costs that
can be deducted in the first year from $5,000 to $50,000.
Plus, any additional startup costs can be deducted over a 10-year
period instead of the current 15. This will go a long way toward
encouraging new business creation and the economic dynamism that comes
along with it.
The second part of my bill focuses on increasing cashflow for
businesses, farms and ranches, and particularly those that operate as
corporations and partnerships, by allowing them to use the so-called
cash method of accounting. Under current law, these businesses, farms,
and ranches are generally forced to use what is called accrual
accounting. Basically, what that means is, a business has to pay tax on
income before it receives the cash, and it cannot deduct all of its
expenses when it pays the invoice.
For a company with inventory, this means it has to deduct the
investments it makes over an extended period of time. A small business
might have to spend the majority of its available cash on inventory but
be unable to fully deduct that expense until all of that inventory is
sold.
In the case of some businesses, it might be well beyond the current
tax year before that substantial investment can be fully deducted. That
can leave a business increasingly cash poor. Cash poor businesses don't
expand. They don't hire new workers. They don't increase wages.
Well, the INVEST Act would allow businesses to deduct investments and
inventory up front, leaving them with more cash on hand to put back
into their operations. It would also reduce the need for businesses to
hire armies of lawyers and accountants to ensure that they have
properly adhered to complex accounting rules.
Finally, the INVEST Act would substantially reform the depreciation
and expensing rules. Traditionally, farms and businesses have been
forced to deduct expenses like machinery, property, or agricultural
equipment over an extended period--anywhere from 5 to 10 years or as
many as 39 years for commercial buildings. That could leave a farm or a
business with its cash tied up for years in all the property it takes
to run the enterprise. Of course, that means a farm, LLC, or S
corporation can spend years without being able to increase its
investment in a business or to hire new workers.
My bill would permanently allow all businesses to deduct 50 percent
of their investment in equipment, vehicles, machinery, and certain
other kinds of property during the year in which they are purchased. It
would also help small and medium-sized farms and businesses to recover
an even greater portion of their capital investments by allowing them
to deduct at least $2 million of new investments in business property.
My bill expands current law so additional building improvements--
things like roofs, heating, and air conditioning units would qualify
for immediate expensing. Farmers and ranchers who may reach the limit
on full expensing are not forgotten either. The bill substantially
increases the rate at which they can deduct the costs of tractors,
combines, and other machinery.
Finally, for those farms and businesses that rely on cars, light
trucks, and vans, this bill would substantially increase the amount of
their vehicle investment that can be deducted when the business
determines its taxable income each year. Currently, a light truck used
on a farm or ranch could cost upwards of $30,000. Yet a farmer is only
allowed to deduct $19,000 of that cost over the required recovery
period for a business vehicle. My bill would substantially increase
that limit to bring it more in line with the real-world costs of
business vehicles.
These changes to expensing rules all have one goal: putting more
money back in the hands of business owners--particularly, small
business owners, farmers, and ranchers. Forcing business owners,
farmers, and ranchers to lock up their capital for 5, 10, or nearly 40
years discourages growth and job creation. Under my bill, businesses,
farms, and ranches would be able to redeploy that hard-to-raise capital
back into business expansion, increase in wages, new jobs, and even new
ventures.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow
at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years. That is a full
percentage point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50
years, which was over 3 percent, or between 3.2 and 3.5. That will mean
decades of fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced
standard of living. We don't want to resign ourselves to that, and we
don't have to. If we eliminate the antigrowth features of our Tax Code,
if we lift the regulatory burdens facing American businesses and free
up businesses to grow and create jobs, we can achieve a future of
strong economic growth--the kind of strong growth that will fuel
employment and wage growth, along with greater opportunities for
American workers.
I hope the INVEST Act will help us develop the kind of tax reform
legislation that will help us restore strong, sustainable economic
growth, and I am looking forward to working with Chairman Hatch and all
of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to put together the
final bill and to get it to the President.
It is time that we give the American people a tax code that actually
works for them.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1150. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
require States to impose a work requirement for able-bodied adults
without dependents who are eligible for medical assistance; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need
for a work requirement in our Medicaid Program. In 1969, President
Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people, and he talked about
breaking the cycle of poverty. This is what President Johnson said:
I believe . . . that the key to success in this effort is
jobs. It is work for people who want to work.
President Johnson, as we know, was a Democrat. He fervently believed
that the people of Louisiana didn't want handouts. Most people want a
chance to support themselves. President Johnson also believed that
Medicaid, as originally envisioned, would be a safety net for the
disabled, the elderly, and people with small children. Medicaid is not
exactly that; it is dramatically different.
Whether you agree or disagree with what has happened to Medicaid, the
fact is that it has turned into a health insurance program for about 20
percent of all Americans. Think about that. We have roughly 320 million
people in our country, and fully 25 percent are on Medicaid. It gets
bigger and bigger every year, and it gets more expensive every year.
You can see that the numbers speak for themselves. You can see the
trend. You can certainly see that we started in 1966, and you can
particularly see the trend beginning in 1996 and its trajectory.
It also became more expensive. The cost of our Medicaid Program in
1966 was $1 billion. That is a lot of money. This is the cost of last
year: $576 billion and climbing.
Let me talk about our State alone. In Louisiana, the cost of Medicaid
has increased from $5.9 billion in 2008 to $10.7 billion today, and 65
percent of all of the babies born in Louisiana every year now are born
on Medicaid. Think about that.
[[Page S3013]]
We know that Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal
Government puts up some of the money; the State puts up some of the
money, as well. In Louisiana, we put up about one-third of the money.
In Louisiana dollars, in 2008, we were putting up $1.7 billion in State
money. It is called the match for the Medicaid Program. Today, the
State of Louisiana is paying $3.3 billion. You can do the math. That is
about a 10 percent increase every year.
If we are spending $3.3 billion of State money, that means every
year, just like clockwork, we have to come up with an extra $330
million. I can tell you where that money comes from. It comes out of
public schools, it comes out of universities, it comes out of our
budget for roads, and it comes out of our budget for public safety.
We have a choice in America. Either Medicaid is going to be, as we
originally envisioned it, a safety net for the old, the disabled, and
mothers with babies or it is going to be a health insurance program for
the masses.
If the American people and Congress decide that Medicaid is going to
be a health insurance program for the general population, then it needs
to operate as health insurance does in the private sector. In other
words, able-bodied adult enrollees in Medicaid should be required to
work in order to receive their benefits, if they are able.
I am filing a bill that is going to be entitled the ``Medicaid Reform
and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017.'' It is going to create a work
requirement for Medicaid. My reason is simple. I want Americans to
prosper. I don't want our people to remain mired in poverty. I want to
break poverty's back by creating a system that doesn't force the
American people to subsist on handouts from government, and the best
way to do that is to provide an incentive for able-bodied Americans to
know the dignity of work because a person without a job is neither
happy, nor is he free.
I think my bill is a commonsense approach to reducing America's
reliance on entitlement programs. The work requirement will be very
simple. It will be similar to the program that we have in place--the
work requirement we have in place right now for food stamps.
This is what my bill would require: If you are on Medicaid or want to
receive Medicaid, and you are an adult between the ages of 18 and 55,
and you are able-bodied, you are not disabled, and you don't have any
dependents, you don't have any children--so if you are 18 to 55, you
are not disabled, and you don't have any children, then in order to
receive Medicaid or to continue to receive Medicaid, you have to either
work 20 hours a week--not 40 hours a week but 20 hours a week--you have
to look for a job or you have to go back to school if you don't want to
work. Or if you don't want to go back to school or you don't want to
look for a job or you don't want to get a job, you have to perform
community service for 20 hours a week. My goal is to get people off
Medicaid and into the workforce, so they can support themselves and not
need Medicaid.
I don't want to take Medicaid away from people in need. I do want
fewer people to need Medicaid. So if you are disabled, if you are
pregnant, if you are elderly, if you are caring for a child, my bill
doesn't apply to you. I am not talking about telling a mother with a
baby in her arms that she has to go find a job, and I am not going to
ask an elderly person in a nursing home to leave the nursing home and
go get a job in order to receive Medicaid. All my bill says is that if
you are young by today's standards, between 18 and 55, you are able-
bodied and you have no children or dependents, then you have to go get
a job or you have to go to school or you have to perform community
service.
I want to be very clear about something else. In my State, we have a
lot of flood victims. We had terrible flooding last year. In my State,
Louisiana, we have a depression in the oil and gas industry; indeed, we
do throughout America, and I know we do in the great State of Alaska as
well. I am not looking to add to their hurt. I am working very hard, as
are you, Mr. President, to put our oilfield workers back to work and to
get our flood victims the assistance they need to recover from the
tragedy that has befallen them. This bill is not about them. This bill
is about able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 55 who have no
dependents and who have been unemployed for years, in many cases, by
their own choosing.
Our country has grown a lot and evolved a lot since Medicaid was
introduced in 1965. We now face new challenges, both at home and
abroad. We know that. Medicaid has grown, as well, but it hasn't
evolved in a positive way, in my opinion. Just 3 years after Medicaid
was founded, we knew we were going to have a problem finding the money,
given the exponential growth in the program, and more than 50 years
later, it is way past time to do something about it.
We have to break the back of poverty. This is not about throwing
people out into the cold. This is about helping them to know that they
can get work because the best program--the best social program in the
entire world is a job. By implementing a work requirement for able-
bodied adults, Medicaid will evolve to the next logical step. Our goal
ought to be to ensure, of course, that people are healthy. That is what
Medicaid exists for, but if you are healthy, then the next step is to
help you join the workforce.
The simple fact is, this is nothing new or extraordinary. We already
have work requirements--required by acts of this Congress--for
unemployment assistance, for welfare benefits, for subsidized housing,
and for food stamps. Now, these requirements have been a success. We
all know that, not just for stemming the costs of those programs but
also for helping people--helping Americans build careers.
Yet we do not have a requirement--a work requirement--for Medicaid.
If my bill passes, we will. Work requirements exist because these
programs are supposed to be safety nets. That is what a social program
is, a safety net. They are not supposed to exist to permanently support
you if you can support yourself.
Our social programs in America are meant to be bridges. In way too
many respects, they have become parking lots. Medicaid costs are not
just a national problem. The program's expansion is clipping the wings
of States like Louisiana and like Alaska because, as I pointed out, the
States have to put up a substantial amount of the money.
We are becoming a country in which people subsist instead of thrive
because they don't know the rewards of work. We have become a country
in which poverty is a way of life for way too many people. That is just
sad. More than 50 years after Medicaid began, it is time to break the
back of poverty once and for all. We can start with a work requirement
for Medicaid.
Thank you.
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 1156. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
rehabilitation expenditures for public school buildings to qualify for
rehabilitation credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am
introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act.
To claim the federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building
renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the
building was previously used, a requirement known as the ``prior use''
rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public
school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but-
dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have
safe, modern spaces in which to learn.
As a Richmond City Council member and later Mayor, I faced challenges
familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings,
and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a
group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand
we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and
magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High
School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package
that made use of federal and state historic tax credits to renovate
Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by
consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new
Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and
[[Page S3014]]
International Studies. Today, some 20 years later, this is one of
America's highest performing public high schools. Without the federal
historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.
This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the
country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of
public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private
sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according
to a 2013 study, more than 800 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old,
representing some 40% of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.
As the Senate considers tax reform and a comprehensive infrastructure
package, I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense
incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good
for jobs.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Rubio, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms.
Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs.
Shaheen, Mr. Franken, Mr. Peters, Mr. Coons, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Booker, Mr. Markey, Mr. Brown, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1158. A bill to help prevent acts of genocide and other atrocity
crimes, which threaten national and international security, by
enhancing United States Government capacities to prevent, mitigate, and
respond to such crises; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, April was Genocide Awareness and
Prevention Month. It commemorated some of the most horrific genocides
and atrocities of the 20th century: the siege of Sarajevo in April
1992, the Rwandan genocide in April 1992; the Cambodian genocide in
April 1975; and, the Armenian genocide in April 1915. Last, Yom Hashoah
or Holocaust Remembrance Day fell during the month of April this year.
We must remember the past. And we must also be mindful of the present
and the future. As we know all too well, criminal atrocities persist
around the globe. In South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, a
political and ethnic conflict is now in its fourth year. Tens of
thousands of civilians were killed in mass atrocities and thousands
more have fled the country fearing for their lives. In Iraq, ISIS has
committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, a
determination made by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last
year. ISIS has killed, expelled, raped, and enslaved Yezidi men, women,
and children in northern Iraq, and has committed similar atrocities
against other groups living in areas under its control.
In Burma, the Rohingya Muslim community faces such severe violence
and dehumanization, including slaughtering and sequestration, that many
experts believe their suffering amounts to genocide. Moreover, in
Syria, repeatedly, we see a government committing atrocities against
its own people. Children are being gassed. Hospitals are being bombed.
Innocent people are being tortured to death.
Too often, we have done too little, waited too long, or been caught
unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to
forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post-
Holocaust pledge of ``Never Again.'' Ignoring the genocide, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world
sends a message to the global community that criminal atrocities are
tolerable. We must do better to see that atrocities never again occur
on our watch.
On April 7, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act,
which expands the tools the U.S. government is using to document
atrocities in Syria and hold President Bashar al-Assad and other
perpetrators accountable. Today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities
occurring in South Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Syria, and elsewhere, I am
introducing another atrocity-related bill, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and
Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017. This bill--named in honor of the
courageous, inspiring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie
Wiesel--strengthens the U.S. government's infrastructure to prevent and
respond to mass atrocities, wherever they may occur.
I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to
make sure the United States has the full arsenal of tools--diplomatic,
economic, and legal--to take meaningful action before atrocities occur.
The costs--both human and economic--of addressing these atrocities too
late or after-the-fact are skyrocketing. The United States must do a
better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these crimes--
when warning signs begin to point towards possible atrocities
occurring, and when strategic investments can have a greater impact in
promoting stability and security. Essential to this effort is ensuring
that the United States Government has structures in place and
mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential
atrocities.
Atrocity prevention has long been a bipartisan cause. In 1988,
President Reagan signed implementing legislation allowing the United
States to become a party to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 2006 National Security
Strategy, President George W. Bush highlighted the ``moral imperative
that states take action to prevent and punish genocide.'' In 2008, the
bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was co-chaired by
former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, stated: ``Genocide and mass atrocities . . .
threaten core U.S. national interests.'' In 2010, the Senate
unanimously passed a resolution recognizing ``the United States
national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide
and other mass atrocities against civilians, and supporting and
encouraging efforts to develop a whole of government approach to
prevent and mitigate such acts.'' In 2011, President Obama declared:
``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security
interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of
America.'' The same year, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations Samantha Power stated that preventing genocide
``required a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind
of methodical organization that accompanies mass-killings.''
We need to continue taking proactive steps to enhance our Nation's
capacity to quickly anticipate and address genocide and other atrocity
crimes. I am introducing the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities
Prevention Act of 2017 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in
this effort by Senators Young, Tillis, Durbin, Rubio, Menendez,
Murkowski, Blumenthal, Warren, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar,
Shaheen, Franken, Peters, Coons, Stabenow, Booker, Markey, Brown,
Baldwin, and Wyden. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill
authorizes the creation of a Mass Atrocities Task Force, which is a
transparent, accountable, proactive, high-level, interagency body that
includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher
from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Task
Force would work collaboratively with representatives of governmental
as well as nongovernmental organizations to oversee the development and
implementation of U.S. policy on atrocity prevention and response.
Second, this bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training
they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs
of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over
time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on
the ground. They will be better equipped to see warning signs, analyze
events, and engage early.
Third, this bill calls on the Director of National Intelligence to
include in his or her annual testimony to Congress on threats to U.S.
national security a review of countries and regions at risk of mass
atrocities as well as, whenever possible, specific risk factors,
potential groups of perpetrators, and at-risk target groups. With this
information, Congress will be better informed and better able to
respond to mass atrocities that are brewing.
Finally, this bill authorizes the Complex Crises Fund, which is a
specifically dedicated portion of our foreign assistance budget for
mitigating conflict. The Complex Crises Fund enables
[[Page S3015]]
us to rapidly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential
atrocities. We have already used the Complex Crises Fund to respond to
crises in the Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya,
Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Without this important tool, our ability to
effectively prevent and mitigate crises is severely constrained.
Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places
the United States on solid moral ground. However, the moral argument is
not the only reason to support this bill. We must also remember that
America's security, and that of our allies, is impacted when civilians
are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees
stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of
extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying
communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS
systematically targeting communities because of their ethnicity or
religious beliefs and practices, and yet, we still lack a comprehensive
framework to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes.
So, let this bill act as our framework, and our call to action, so that
when we use the phrase ``never again,'' we know that we are taking
meaningful preventative action.
______
By Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Casey, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Heitkamp,
Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Mrs.
McCaskill):
S. 1162. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the
reintroduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
of 2017. This legislation would allow student loan borrowers to take
advantage of lower interest rates, and I urge both my Senate colleagues
and the Trump administration to support it. In a few short months,
millions more college graduates will be hit with their first student
loan bills.
Already, more than 44 million Americans have student loans, and many
are struggling to pay loans that are running at interest rates of 6
percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even more. It is time for real
action to help struggling borrowers. That is why, today, I join 36 of
my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and 98 of my Democratic
colleagues in the House of Representatives to reintroduce our plan to
allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment by refinancing their
existing loans to today's lower interest rates, 3.76 percent for
undergrads, a little higher for graduate students.
Supporting America's students should not be a political food fight.
In fact, President Trump talked about student loans when he was on the
campaign trial, including a plan to reduce the maximum number of years
for repayment for most students.
As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ``students should not be asked
to pay more on the debt than they can afford.'' I agree with that,
which is why Congress should allow students to lower their monthly
payments by refinancing to today's lower interest rates. Donald Trump
also said that ``student loan debt should not be an albatross around
student's necks for the rest of their lives.''
I agree with that too. The legislation I am introducing today would
lower the outstanding balance for millions of Americans, allowing them
to get out from under their student loans faster. Here is one more.
Donald Trump said that it is ``terrible that one of the only profit
centers we have is student loans.'' He also said that ``it is not fair
and that should not take place.''
Unfortunately, right now, that is exactly what is happening.
According to a recent analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by
the Institute for College Access and Success, after all the costs are
accounted for, the Federal Government is now on track to make $81
billion off student loans over the next 10 years.
That is obscene. The Federal Government should not be making a profit
off the backs of our students, period. Yes, Candidate Trump talked a
lot about this problem, but talk is cheap, and President Trump has not
done a thing to fix the problem. In fact, he seems to have lost all
interest in students and their student loans. Since his election in
November, he has not even mentioned his campaign promises about student
loans.
Instead, he and Education Secretary DeVos have gone in the opposite
direction, using their short time in office to deliver one blow after
another to hard-working Americans who are struggling with student debt.
Back when he was running for President, Donald Trump made a lot of
promises, but empty promises don't help the students who have been
punched in the gut by Secretary DeVos's decision to roll back critical
consumer protections for borrowers.
Hollow campaign pledges do not help the students, the veterans, the
members of our Armed Forces when they are hurt by student loan
companies, like Navient, that break the law and brazenly announce to
the world that they don't think they have a responsibility to act in
the best interests of students.
Rally speeches don't mean much when this administration is ripping up
policies that would have made it harder for greedy student loan
companies to rake in lucrative government contracts while cheating
students. Last year's rhetoric means nothing to the struggling
borrowers who can now be charged sky-high fees--as high as 16 percent--
by student loan collection companies thanks to yet another policy Betsy
DeVos ripped up.
Students know what is going on. The loan companies know too. Industry
stocks have skyrocketed since November. Mr. President, keep your
promise and start by supporting this refinancing bill.
For nearly 4 years, Republicans have filibustered this bill and
refused to even debate it, despite its overwhelming public support.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have offered nothing--nothing--to
seriously address the problems of student loan borrowers. Those
problems keep getting worse. Today's students are wrestling with $1.4
trillion in student loan debt, and every year the student loan debt
increases by nearly $100 billion.
Interest rates are scheduled to jump up again later this summer,
meaning the urgency for Congress to act and allow borrowers to access
today's rates is stronger than ever. The Bank on Students Emergency
Loan Refinancing Act would give millions of borrowers across this
country a chance to save hundreds and in some cases thousands of
dollars a year. That is real money, money they can put toward paying
down the balance on their debt, money they can use to save for a home,
money they can spend on buying a car, money they can put toward
building a solid future.
By refusing to act and ignoring this debt crisis, Republicans
threaten to bury the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for
Congress to step up and fix this problem. It is also time for the
President to step up as well.
President Trump, you campaigned on the idea that the Federal
Government should not be making a profit off the backs of hard-working
students. So support this legislation. Put it in your annual budget,
this proposal. Call on Members of your own party who have held up this
bill to get on board. Demand action to refinance student loan debt, and
keep the promises you made to America's young people.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Cruz, and
Mr. Cotton):
S. 1163. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
ensure compliance of medical facilities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs with requirements relating to the scheduling of appointments,
to require appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate
of certain
[[Page S3016]]
health care officials of the Department, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1163
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Health Care
Integrity Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE OF MEDICAL FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS
RELATING TO SCHEDULING OF APPOINTMENTS FOR
HOSPITAL CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES.
(a) Annual Certification.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
ensure that the director of each medical facility of the
Department of Veterans Affairs annually certifies to the
Secretary that--
(A) the medical facility is in full compliance with all
regulations and other provisions of law relating to
scheduling appointments for veterans to receive hospital care
or medical services, including Veterans Health Administration
Directive 1230 or any successor directive; and
(B) any official data on wait times for appointments to
receive hospital care or medical services submitted by the
director to the Secretary during the year preceding the
submittal of the certification is true and accurate to the
best of the director's knowledge.
(2) Prohibition on waiver.--The Secretary may not waive any
regulation or other provision of law described in paragraph
(1) for a medical facility of the Department if such
regulation or other provision of law otherwise applies to the
medical facility.
(b) Explanation of Noncompliance.--If a director of a
medical facility of the Department does not make a
certification under subsection (a)(1) for any year, the
director shall submit to the Secretary a report containing--
(1) an explanation of why the director is unable to make
such certification; and
(2) a description of the actions the director is taking to
ensure full compliance with the regulations and other
provisions of law described in such subsection.
(c) Prohibition on Bonuses Based on Noncompliance.--
(1) In general.--If a director of a medical facility of the
Department does not make a certification under subsection
(a)(1) for any year, no covered official described in
paragraph (2) may receive an award or bonus under chapter 45
or 53 of title 5, United States Code, or any other award or
bonus authorized under such title or title 38, United States
Code, during the year following the year in which the
certification was not made.
(2) Covered official described.--A covered official
described in this paragraph is each official who serves in
the following positions at a medical facility of the
Department during a year, or portion thereof, for which the
director does not make a certification under subsection
(a)(1):
(A) The director.
(B) The chief of staff.
(C) The associate director.
(D) The associate director for patient care.
(E) The deputy chief of staff.
(d) Annual Report.--Not less frequently than annually, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives a report containing, with respect to
the year covered by the report--
(1) a list of each medical facility of the Department for
which a certification was made under subsection (a)(1); and
(2) a list of each medical facility of the Department for
which such a certification was not made, including a copy of
each report submitted to the Secretary under subsection (b).
SEC. 3. UNIFORM APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVES AND POLICIES OF
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
apply the directives and policies of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to each office or facility of the Department
in a uniform manner.
(b) Notification.--If the Secretary does not uniformly
apply the directives and policies of the Department pursuant
to subsection (a), including by waiving such a directive or
policy with respect to an office, facility, or element of the
Department, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives of such
nonuniform application, including an explanation for the
nonuniform application.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT FOR APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF
CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
(a) Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health.--
Subsection (c) of section 7306 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), appointments
under subsection (a) shall be made by the Secretary.
``(2) Appointments under subsection (a)(1) shall be made by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
``(3) In the case of appointments under paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), (4), and (8) of subsection (a), such appointments
shall be made upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary
for Health.''.
(b) Other Deputy Under Secretary Positions.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and
Management of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Deputy
Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services of the
Department, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits
of the Department, the Deputy Under Secretary for Disability
Assistance of the Department, and the Deputy Under Secretary
for Field Operations of the Department shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to authorize the establishment of any new
position within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(c) Application.--Subsection (b) and the amendment made by
subsection (a) shall apply to appointments made on and after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Nelson, Mrs. Fischer, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 1164. A bill to protect consumers from deceptive practices with
respect to online booking of hotel reservations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1164
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Online Booking Scams
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Internet has become an important channel of
commerce in the United States, accounting for billions of
dollars in retail sales every year.
(2) Hotel reservation transactions can be easily made
online and online commerce has created a marketplace where
consumers can shop for hotels, flights, car rentals, and
other travel-related services and products across thousands
of brands on a single platform.
(3) Consumers should be able to clearly identify the
company with which they are transacting business online.
(4) Actions by third-party sellers that misappropriate
brand identity, trademark, or other marketing content are
harmful to consumers.
(5) Platforms offered by online travel agencies provide
consumers with a valuable tool for comparative shopping for
hotels and should not be mistaken for the unlawful third-
party actors that commit such misappropriation.
(6) The misleading and deceptive sales tactics companies
use against consumers booking hotel rooms online have
resulted in the loss of sensitive financial and personal
information, financial harm, and other damages for consumers.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) consumers benefit from the ability to shop for travel-
related services and products on the innovative platforms
offered by online travel agencies;
(2) sellers on the Internet should--
(A) provide consumers with clear, accurate information; and
(B) have an opportunity to compete fairly with one another;
and
(3) the Federal Trade Commission should revise the
Commission's Internet site to make it easier for consumers
and businesses to report complaints of deceptive practices
with respect to online booking of hotel reservations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Affiliation contract.--The term ``affiliation
contract'' means, with respect to a hotel, a contract with
the owner of the hotel, the entity that manages the hotel, or
the franchisor of the hotel to provide online hotel
reservation services for the hotel.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(3) Exhibition organizer or meeting planner.--The term
``exhibition organizer or meeting planner'' means the person
responsible for all aspects of planning, promoting, and
producing a meeting, conference, event, or exhibition,
including overseeing and arranging all hotel reservation
plans and contracts for the meeting, conference, event, or
exhibition.
(4) Official housing bureau.--The term ``official housing
bureau'' means the organization designated by an exhibition
organizer or meeting planner to provide hotel reservation
services for meetings, conferences, events, or exhibitions.
[[Page S3017]]
(5) Party directly affiliated.--The term ``party directly
affiliated'' means, with respect to a hotel, a person who has
entered into an affiliation contract with the hotel.
(6) Third-party online hotel reservation seller.--The term
``third-party online hotel reservation seller'' means any
person that--
(A) sells any good or service with respect to a hotel in a
transaction effected on the Internet; and
(B) is not--
(i) a party directly affiliated with the hotel; or
(ii) an exhibition organizer or meeting planner or the
official housing bureau for a meeting, conference, event, or
exhibition held at the hotel.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR THIRD-PARTY ONLINE HOTEL RESERVATION
SELLERS.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for a third-party
online hotel reservation seller to charge or attempt to
charge any consumer's credit card, debit card, bank account,
or other financial account for any good or service sold in a
transaction effected on the Internet with respect to a hotel
unless the third-party online hotel reservation seller--
(1) clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer all
material terms of the transaction, including--
(A) before the conclusion of the transaction--
(i) a description of the good or service being offered; and
(ii) the cost of such good or service; and
(B) in a manner that is continuously visible to the
consumer throughout the transaction process, that the
person--
(i) is a third-party online hotel reservation seller; and
(ii) is not--
(I) affiliated with the owner of the hotel or the entity
that provides the hotel services or accommodations; or
(II) an exhibition organizer or meeting planner or the
official housing bureau for a meeting, conference, event, or
exhibition held at the hotel; or
(2) includes prominent and continuous disclosure of the
brand identity of the third-party online hotel reservation
seller throughout the transaction process, whether online or
over the phone.
(b) Enforcement by Commission.--
(1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.--A violation of
subsection (a) by a person subject to such subsection shall
be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)).
(2) Powers of commission.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall enforce this section
in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of
this Act.
(B) Privileges and immunities.--Any person who violates
this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled
to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
(C) Rulemaking.--
(i) In general.--The Commission may promulgate such rules
as the Commission considers appropriate to enforce this
section.
(ii) Procedures.--The Commission shall carry out any
rulemaking under clause (i) in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Enforcement by States.--
(1) In general.--In any case in which the attorney general
of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the
residents of the State has been or is being threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any person subject to
subsection (a) in a practice that violates such subsection,
the attorney general of the State may, as parens patriae,
bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State
in an appropriate district court of the United States to
obtain appropriate relief.
(2) Rights of federal trade commission.--
(A) Notice to federal trade commission.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the
attorney general of a State shall notify the Commission in
writing that the attorney general intends to bring a civil
action under paragraph (1) before initiating any civil action
against a person subject to subsection (a).
(ii) Contents.--The notification required under clause (i)
with respect to a civil action shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate the civil action.
(iii) Exception.--If it is not feasible for the attorney
general of a State to provide the notification required by
clause (i) before initiating a civil action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general shall notify the Commission
immediately upon instituting the civil action.
(B) Intervention by federal trade commission.--The
Commission may--
(i) intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney
general of a State under paragraph (1); and
(ii) upon intervening--
(I) be heard on all matters arising in the civil action;
and
(II) file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil
action.
(3) Investigatory powers.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of the State--
(A) to conduct investigations;
(B) to administer oaths or affirmations; or
(C) to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production
of documentary or other evidence.
(4) State coordination with federal trade commission.--If
the Commission institutes a civil action or an administrative
action with respect to a violation of subsection (a), the
attorney general of a State shall coordinate with the
Commission before bringing a civil action under paragraph (1)
against any defendant named in the complaint of the
Commission for the violation with respect to which the
Commission instituted such action.
(5) Venue; service of process.--
(A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be
brought in--
(i) the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code; or
(ii) another court of competent jurisdiction.
(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under
paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which
the defendant--
(i) is an inhabitant; or
(ii) may be found.
(6) Actions by other state officials.--
(A) In general.--In addition to civil actions brought by
attorneys general under paragraph (1), any other officer of a
State who is authorized by the State to do so may bring a
civil action under paragraph (1), subject to the same
requirements and limitations that apply under this subsection
to civil actions brought by attorneys general.
(B) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to prohibit an authorized official of a State from
initiating or continuing any proceeding in a court of the
State for a violation of any civil or criminal law of the
State.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is a
pillar of Montana's economy. Our wealth of public lands, first-class
fishing, hiking and skiing, and our breathtaking natural landscapes
make Montana a special place for people to visit. Last year alone,
visitors to Montana spent $3.46 billion in our state. And Montana is
not alone. The travel and tourism industry plays a significant role in
the United States economy as well, contributing over $503 billion to
the U.S. GDP just last year.
With advancements in technology and the increased use of online
marketplaces, travelers have the ability to do more research, plan
trips, and book reservations online. Online platforms allow customers
to compare thousands of brands in one place and as a result the number
of hotel reservations made online has surged over the past several
years, many of which are on legitimate third-party websites. However,
as the ease and number of online bookings has increased, so has the
number of online booking scams.
Illegitimate reservation sellers pose as hotel websites, leading
consumers to believe they are booking directly with the hotel, when in
fact they are booking with an unrelated third party. Transactions on
these sites can result in additional hidden fees, loss of expected
loyalty points, or even confirmation of reservations that were never
made. One study found that as many as fifteen million bookings a year
are affected by fraudulent websites. In Montana, you expect to get what
you pay for. When you book a hotel online only to find out you are not
on the list when you arrive, you not only lose your money, but you lose
the positive experience tourism awards.
That is why I am proud to introduce the Stop Online Booking Scams Act
of 2017 along with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Fischer, and
Klobuchar. This bill requires third-party sites to disclose that they
are not affiliated with the hotel, providing clarity and transparency
to consumers booking online. It also empowers State attorneys general
to pursue cases on behalf of consumers who have been scammed. Providing
clear disclosures that reveal the true identity of websites will give
confidence to the millions of consumers who make reservations online
every year. I ask my colleagues who have not yet done so to join me in
cosponsoring this much-needed legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Capito,
Mr. King, Ms. Collins, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. Booker):
S. 1169. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide States with an option to provide medical assistance to
individuals between
[[Page S3018]]
the ages of 22 and 64 for inpatient services to treat substance use
disorders at certain facilities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1169
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Coverage for
Addiction Recovery Expansion Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR
RESIDENTIAL ADDICTION TREATMENT FACILITY
SERVICES; MODIFICATION OF THE IMD EXCLUSION.
(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(16)--
(A) by striking ``and, (B)'' and inserting ``, (B)''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and (C) effective January 1, 2019,
residential addiction treatment facility services (as defined
in subsection (h)(3)) for individuals over 21 years of age
and under 65 years of age, if offered as part of a full
continuum of evidence-based treatment services provided under
the State plan, including residential, outpatient, and
community-based care, for individuals with substance use
disorders'' before the semicolon; and
(2) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (16) of
subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(16)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) For purposes of subsection (a)(16)(C), the term
`residential addiction treatment facility services' means,
subject to subparagraph (B), inpatient services provided--
``(i) to an individual for the purpose of treating a
substance use disorder that are furnished to an individual
for not more than 2 consecutive periods of 30 consecutive
days, provided that upon completion of the first 30-day
period, the individual is assessed and determined to have
progressed through the clinical continuum of care, in
accordance with criteria established by the Secretary, in
consultation with the American Society of Addiction Medicine,
and requires continued medically necessary treatment and
social support services to promote recovery, stable
transition to ongoing treatment, and discharge; and
``(ii) in a facility that is accredited for the treatment
of substance use disorders by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, the Council on
Accreditation, or any other accrediting agency that the
Secretary deems appropriate as necessary to ensure nationwide
applicability, including qualified national organizations and
State-level accrediting agencies.
``(B) The State agency responsible for administering the
State plan under this title shall establish procedures to
ensure that, with respect to any facility providing
residential addiction treatment facility services in a fiscal
year, the average monthly number of beds used by the facility
to provide such services during such year is not more than
40.
``(C) The provision of medical assistance for residential
addiction treatment facility services to an individual shall
not prohibit Federal financial participation for medical
assistance for items or services that are provided to the
individual in or away from the residential addiction
treatment facility during any 30-day period in which the
individual is receiving residential addiction treatment
facility services.
``(D) A woman who is eligible for medical assistance on the
basis of being pregnant and who is furnished residential
addiction treatment facility services during any 30-day
period may remain eligible for, and continue to be furnished
with, such services for additional 30-day periods without
regard to any eligibility limit that would otherwise apply to
the woman as a result of her pregnancy ending, subject to
assessment by the facility and a determination based on
medical necessity related to substance use disorder and the
impact of substance use disorder on birth outcomes.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after
January 1, 2019.
SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM TO EXPAND YOUTH ADDICTION TREATMENT
FACILITIES UNDER MEDICAID AND CHIP.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
under which the Secretary shall award grants to States for
the purpose of expanding the infrastructure and treatment
capabilities, including augmenting equipment and bed
capacity, of eligible youth addiction treatment facilities
that provide addiction treatment services to Medicaid or CHIP
beneficiaries who have not attained the age of 21 and are in
communities with high numbers of medically underserved
populations of at-risk youth.
(2) Use of funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
may be used to expand the infrastructure and treatment
capabilities of an existing facility (including through
construction) but shall not be used for the construction of
any new facility or for the provision of medical assistance
or child health assistance under Medicaid or CHIP.
(3) Timetable for implementation; duration.--
(A) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall award
grants under the grant program.
(B) Duration.--The Secretary shall award grants under the
grant program for a period not to exceed 5 years.
(b) Application.--A State seeking to participate in the
grant program shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and
in such manner as the Secretary shall require, an application
that includes--
(1) detailed information on the types of additional
infrastructure and treatment capacity of eligible youth
addiction treatment facilities that the State proposes to
fund under the grant program;
(2) a description of the communities in which the eligible
youth addiction treatment facilities funded under the grant
program operate;
(3) an assurance that the eligible youth addiction
treatment facilities that the State proposes to fund under
the grant program shall give priority to providing addiction
treatment services to Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries who have
not attained the age of 21 and are in communities with high
numbers of medically underserved populations of at-risk
youth; and
(4) such additional information and assurances as the
Secretary shall require.
(c) Rural Areas.--Not less than 15 percent of the amount of
a grant awarded to a State under this section shall be used
for making payments to eligible youth addiction treatment
facilities that are located in rural areas or that target the
provision of addiction treatment services to Medicaid or CHIP
beneficiaries who have not attained the age of 21 and reside
in rural areas.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Addiction treatment services.--The term ``addiction
treatment services'' means services provided to an individual
for the purpose of treating a substance use disorder.
(2) CHIP.--The term ``CHIP'' means the State children's
health insurance program established under title XXI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
(3) Eligible youth addiction treatment facility.--The term
``eligible youth addiction treatment facility'' means a
facility that is a participating provider under the State
Medicaid or CHIP programs for purposes of providing medical
assistance or child health assistance to Medicaid or CHIP
beneficiaries for youth addiction treatment services on an
inpatient or outpatient basis (or both).
(4) Medicaid.--The term ``Medicaid'' means the medical
assistance program established under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(5) Medicaid or chip beneficiary.--The term ``Medicaid or
CHIP beneficiary'' means an individual who is enrolled in the
State Medicaid plan, the State child health plan under CHIP,
or under a waiver of either such plan.
(6) Medically underserved populations.--The term
``medically underserved populations'' has the meaning given
that term in section 330(b)(3) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(b)(3)).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out the provisions of
this section. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall
remain available until expended.
____________________