[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.

                          ____________________