INVEST Act of 2017

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.''

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.

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.''

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.

Mr. President, the Senate has under consideration the nomination of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General of the United States, one of the very top positions in the Department of Justice and in law enforcement. It is a position of consummate trust and responsibility, requiring full public confidence. I will oppose this nomination, and I will oppose all nominations for the Department of Justice until public trust and confidence in the rule of law is restored and sustained by appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our last election and potential links to the Trump campaign and Trump associates.

I opposed Rod Rosenstein's nomination. In fact, I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee to vote against it and one of six on the floor to oppose it for exactly the same reason. I stated to him publicly and privately that the only way to preserve his own reputation--well established over many years--and the trust and confidence in the Department of Justice was to appoint an independent prosecutor. So far, regrettably, he has failed to do so.

That question will be the first of my priorities when the full Senate meets with him tomorrow. We will demand to

know from him what the timeline was for the firing of Director Comey, who said what to whom, why his memorandum was written, and whether he will now commit, after these most recent startling revelations just yesterday that the President of the United States suggested--indeed, explicitly demanded--that Director Comey stop his investigation involving potential ties of Michael Flynn to Russian interference in our election.

Chilling facts raised in the last several days now raise serious questions about obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. So we consider this nomination at a truly unusual, very likely unique and unprecedented time in our country.

The revelation last evening that President Trump asked the FBI Director to shut down the Federal investigation into his then-National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is evidence of severe political interference and possibly criminal wrongdoing in an ongoing criminal investigation. The evidence of obstruction continues to mount. We are witnessing an obstruction of justice case unfolding before our eyes in real time. Revelation after revelation continues to shake this country's confidence in our government and in this administration's competence. The need for an independent special prosecutor has never been so clear and convincing and so unquestionably necessary.

I call on my Republican colleagues now to rise to this challenge, to shine in the light of history, and to commit that an independent special prosecutor will be appointed to uncover the truth and hold accountable anyone who has committed wrongdoing.

Because so far we have no such special prosecutor, I will oppose this nomination. But I also have disagreements with Rachel Brand. I respect her record of public service. I believe she is simply not the right person to serve as Associate Attorney General because of her longstanding, apparently deeply held philosophy on the use and proper application of government power. When the Federal Government engaged in actions that threaten the privacy rights of innocent Americans, Ms. Brand has advocated nonaction. I believe the United States must protect the privacy of her citizens, and that fact is only one among many that cause me to disagree with her.

The failure to nominate and appoint an independent special prosecutor will lead me to oppose all of the nominations that are set forth by this administration, including anyone nominated for the FBI. I think it should now be clear, if it was not before, that such an independent prosecutor is necessary.

Parallels have been drawn by Members on both sides of the aisle to the Watergate scandal. To this day, we don't know whether President Nixon ordered the Watergate break-ins or simply was a beneficiary of the crime, just as we don't know now whether Donald Trump colluded with Russian interference in the 2016 election or simply benefitted from Russia's criminal aggression. The Watergate scandal gave rise to the saying that ``the cover-up is worse than the crime.'' In this instance, what we know is that the Russian interference was aimed at a wholesale theft of our democracy, far more serious than the Watergate break-in. What we do know about Nixon--and these facts became the basis for the first article of impeachment--is that he attempted to indirectly interfere with an FBI investigation into that break-in. Put very simply, while Nixon may not have directly threatened to fire the FBI Director if that Director continued to investigate Nixon associates, he made clear that his preference as head of the executive branch was that any such investigation should cease.

``History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.'' That is a saying that has profound truth here. We now have credible reports that President Trump attempted to do directly what President Nixon sought to do indirectly. He stopped a lawful, ongoing criminal investigation. Nixon ordered his staff to work through the CIA to pressure the FBI to drop the Watergate investigation. President Trump simply summoned Director Comey into the Oval Office, according to reports that certainly need to be verified, and ordered everyone else to leave the room, suggesting then that the Director drop his investigation. He did so just 2 weeks after having told Director Comey that he might not have a place in the Trump administration and making clear that Director Comey's loyalty to him might well determine whether Comey would keep his job. When Director Comey rejected Trump's suggestion, in effect, he was fired. That is the line of facts established by this mounting evidence. It is a serious charge.

We should be cautious. If Director Comey did not write that memo or if, for some reason, there is a question about the truth, perhaps the suspicions are unfounded, but there is credible and significant evidence. Director Comey has established--to both his critics and his friends--that he is a man of probity and dedication to public service and to this Nation.

We cannot feel confident about nominations for any of these positions--whether it be Director of the FBI or Associate Attorney General--from a President who has demonstrated such contempt for the rule of law and for law enforcement, which is the job of the Department of Justice. The White House's timeline and justifications for the decision to fire Director Comey certainly now, at this moment, fail to meet the test of credibility.

We know from the President's own words in interviews he conducted late last week that the FBI investigation into possible collusion between individuals in the Trump campaign and the Russian Government was on the President's mind when he decided to fire the FBI Director. In at least two conversations, the President asked the FBI Director about this investigation and the related investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Late last night the Times revealed the details of one such conversation. It occurred in the Oval Office the day after Flynn resigned. The account written by Director Comey, which seems to meet fully the test of credibility, is absolutely chilling. ``I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,'' Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo reported in The New York Times. ``He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.'' When the FBI Director continued to pursue the investigation, President Trump fired him.

We are witnessing this obstruction of justice in realtime, and these revelations are shaking our country's faith in the independence of our Nation's highest ranking law enforcement agency, our rule of law, and our national security. It is a theft of our democracy--literally, a threat to our national security--from Russian meddling in the election, potential Trump ties, and links to that interference in our democracy-- the core, foundational exercise of our democracy being voting--and then waiting for 2\1/2\ weeks when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates warned that Michael Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as National Security Adviser--blackmail from the Russians. She was fired only days later.

When the investigation into that Russian meddling and Trump's ties to it continued, Director Comey was summoned to be told that the investigation should be shut down, and he was fired when he refused to do so. Very likely, part of that decision related to the request for additional resources that Director Comey made to Rosenstein shortly before he was fired and his refusal to rule out the President as a target of that investigation when he came before the Judiciary Committee.

The facts will eventually form a mosaic, and that mosaic may dramatically show a picture of criminal conduct. That is the process of investigating and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing. Right now, that activity requires a fidelity to the rule of law in one's getting all of the evidence, including transcripts, tapes, memos, and other documents. They must be subpoenaed immediately so that they are not destroyed or concealed, so that they are preserved and produced. That must be done without delay, including there being testimony under oath, in public, from Comey, Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Don McGahn, White House Counsel. They should be called to testify by the Judiciary Committee, under oath, and in public.

I hope that my colleagues will, indeed, rise to this challenge and shine in the light of history and commit now to

an independent special prosecutor who can ensure that the truth is uncovered and that accountability is imposed for any criminal wrongdoing so that we will prevent any obstruction of justice because the American people deserve it, they need it, and they demand it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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.

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.

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

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.