Medicaid Reform and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017

Mr. President, colleagues, I am very pleased to be joined on the floor today by Senator Young. We are both members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and both have an interest in Middle East security. We have joined together on the floor today to give remarks and perhaps have a short colloquy about a humanitarian crisis that is unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East.

Today, inside the country of Yemen--a country that, frankly, not a lot of our constituents give much thought to--every 10 minutes a child under the age of 5 is dying due to preventable causes. Today, 18 million Yemeni civilians--two thirds of the entire population of this country--cannot survive without humanitarian or protection support, and 7 million of those are on what we would call a starvation diet, which means that on a daily basis they don't know where their next meal is coming from. They don't have enough food to eat in order to remain healthy. Three million have already fled their homes because of the violence that has been caused by a civil war--that both Senator Young and I will talk about--inside their country and the humanitarian catastrophe that has resulted from that civil war.

This is one of four current famines that exists in the world today. But I would argue that this particular humanitarian crisis is in some ways the most relevant to the discussions we will have here in the Senate because the United States is participating in the military campaign that is, in fact, causing in part this humanitarian crisis.

The United States is an active participant with a Saudi-led military campaign seeking to regain control of Yemen from a group called the Houthis, who overran the capital and now control large portions of the country.

We, of course, are allies of Saudi Arabia. The President will be visiting Saudi Arabia very soon to solidify that alliance. But it is time we started asking some really hard questions about the conduct of the Saudi campaign inside Yemen and whether we are, in fact, helping to create a humanitarian catastrophe on the grounds that is impossible to defend on moral grounds but also is hard to defend based on national security grounds as well.

Let's be honest about what is happening here. The Saudis are deliberately trying to create a famine inside Yemen in order to essentially starve the Yemenis to the negotiating table. Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman said:

Time is on our side. Being patient is in our interest. We

have the supplies and we have the logistics and high morale.

The enemy does not have supplies and funds and is impatient.

Time is on our side and we will exploit the time to serve our

interests.

What are the Saudis doing to try to exploit this question of time and supplies? First, they are coming directly after the main port city, which brings 70 percent of food into Yemen and about 80 percent of all of the oil. That port city is called Hodeidah.

Senator Young has been very good in meetings to draw issue with what is believed to be deliberate targeting by the Saudis of the cranes and infrastructure in this port which allow for the supplies to come off of boats and move into these desperately, desperately needy areas of the country.

Second, they are requiring an additional screening process for this humanitarian aid above and beyond the one the United Nations has put into place. The United Nations is vetting supply ships coming in to Hodeidah to make sure there is really food and aid on these ships, not weapons, and it is working. But the Saudis are putting an additional process on top that is adding up to a month from the time the aid gets off the ship and into the country. Between that and the military campaign targeting the port and its infrastructure, this has essentially resulted in an effective blockade being put in and around Hodeidah, such that humanitarian support cannot effectively get into the country. But that is just the beginning.

The Saudi bombing campaign has deliberately targeted roads and bridges throughout the country, many of them in and around north Yemen. There are reports that the bombers have engaged in something called double tapping, which is where you hit a humanitarian--a civilian-- asset. You wait until the workers come to try to address that first strike, and then you hit it a second time to take out the civilians who have responded to the emergency. This isn't just my opinion of the situation. Representations have been made by multiple aid organizations on the ground, and, more importantly, by U.S. officials who have been embedded with the coalition.

This is a quote from Dafna Rand, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State who was in charge of the Saudi coalition portfolio at State:

In 2015, the U.S. Government offered technical training on

cyber, ballistic missiles, border security, counterterrorism,

and maritime security, [and] the precision guided

munitions were transferred in 2015 on the hopes that they

would enable better and more precise targeting by the

coalition of the targets

itself. [But instead,] what we have seen since is not an

improvement in the targeting, and the issue itself is the

target selection. It is not the precision of the target

itself, but it is the choice of targets and adherence to

the no-strike list.

That is a really important statement, a really important sentence, because what is happening is that the United States is telling the coalition: What are the civilian targets you should stay away from, so the humanitarian aid can move into the country? The coalition is deliberately ignoring that advice. It is not a matter of mistakes being made on the ground, though there have been mistakes. It is also a matter of a no-strike list being ignored.

I mention that this is not just about the millions and millions of Yemenis who are starving today because of this civil war. It is also a question of whether this is accruing to the U.S. national security interests. Again, I am speaking just for myself on this matter.

We are allies of the Saudis, and there is no doubt that an Iranian proxy state inside Yemen presents a threat to the Saudi State. There is no doubt that Houthis have been launching attacks into Saudi Arabia. This is a real security threat for our allies. But we do have to acknowledge that there are other players that exist inside Yemen today. It is not just the Houthis and those Yemeni forces supported by the Saudis. There is also al-Qaida--a branch of al-Qaida we know well because it has traditionally been the piece of al-Qaida that has the most advanced threats to the U.S. homeland--and ISIS, which is growing inside Yemen. They have taken advantage of this civil war to fill in the ungovernable spaces.

Recently, with the help of the UAE, we have begun to hit back against al-Qaida and ISIS inside Yemen. But for a portion of time, they controlled a sizeable amount of territory and revenue inside that country. ISIS is growing as well.

As a group of Yemeni Americans told me in my office about a year ago, to Yemenis the bombing campaign is not perceived as a Saudi bombing campaign; it is seen as a U.S. bombing campaign or, at the very least, a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign.

So when responsibility inside Yemen is allotted and attributed for this starvation campaign, it is placed upon the United States, as well as on Saudi Arabia. We have to think about what that means, given the fact that there is the potential for millions of Yemenis to be radicalized in a place with very sophisticated radical infrastructure. This is a real national security concern for the United States.

I think it is time for us to draw a hard line with this coalition and say that we will not continue to support it if there is not a real commitment made to change the way the targeting happens and to make sure that relief supplies can flow into that country to try to address this unfolding famine and humanitarian catastrophe. We can be allies with the Saudis. We can be military allies with the Saudis. But they have to understand and their partners need to understand that this humanitarian nightmare inside Yemen is both immoral--to participate in a campaign that perpetuates that kind of humanitarian crisis--but it also, in the end, doesn't benefit the long-term security of the United States or our partners in the coalition.

So we come down to the floor today to try to explain to our colleagues what is happening on the ground and to see if there is a bipartisan way for us to have a policy that brings significant relief to the suffering of the Yemeni people and strengthens our national security in the region.

With that, I notice Senator Young is going to say a few words, and then I think we will engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana. I think he walked through his thoughtful approach to this issue, which has led him to cosponsor this resolution placing these very commonsense conditions upon the transfer of further munitions.

I might ask him a question. In his list of steps he has asked the Saudis to take--I have joined him in that letter, as have many of our colleagues--amongst them is a commitment to not take military action against the port of Hodeidah.

We both met with the Foreign Minister, who talked about the need to use increased military pressure inside Yemen backed by U.S. participation in the coalition to try to draw the Houthis to the table. We have both expressed reservations about the effectiveness of that tactic, and we have something to say about it because none of this can occur without U.S. military support.

Can the Senator talk a little bit about our joint fears or his personal fears about a major new campaign on this port that brings in so much of this aid and how, in the end, that really doesn't further the goals of the coalition, the United States being amongst the partners?

I thank Senator Young for making it clear in his prepared remarks that while we are focusing on the Saudis because we are part of this coalition, the Houthis do not have clean hands here either. Part of the reason humanitarian supplies have a hard time getting to places that need them is because there are roadblocks put up by the Houthis as well. And there is this known connection between the Houthis and the Iranians--sometimes, in my opinion, a bit overplayed by some foreign policy thinkers, but it is real.

To your second point in answer to my question, Senator Young, that is, to my mind, also a likely result of a deepening of the military conflict. If the Houthis had nowhere to turn, then the calculation might be different, but because the Iranians are there as a support system to lean on, a continued military campaign against Hodeidah would push them deeper into a corner and just broaden the scope of the military conflict.

There ultimately has to be a political resolution here, and by simply upping the military ante and continuing the humanitarian crisis, you get further away from that political negotiating table rather than closer to it.

It goes without saying that it is in no one's interests in the region for this civil war to continue at its current pace. So this is an important moment at the beginning of a new administration, with a pending arms sale on the table with the Saudis, to

use that transition moment and the leverage that exists with this new proposal for major arms sales to the Saudis to make sure we get this right.

I think there is nothing political about this. We all join together in trying to abate humanitarian crises and famines around the world, and we all want a policy that is going to bring an end to this civil war because, as I said, it is just as important to remember that the most immediate enemies of the United States--those terrorist groups who want to do harm to us--find their most fertile ground today inside Yemen. The sooner we can put an end to this civil war and be able to have a central government structure that spreads across the scope of the country, the quicker we can all be focused on trying to eliminate the ISIS and al-Qaida presence--AQAP, as we refer to them--in Yemen from that battlespace.

I say to Senator Young, I don't know if you have closing remarks, but I appreciate your willingness to speak up and your leadership here, and I hope we can get others on both sides of the aisle to propose and support these commonsense conditions upon this new military transfer so that we can get the situation right inside Yemen.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murphy to discuss the importance of this humanitarian crisis in Yemen. As he so cogently emphasized, this is, at once, a humanitarian crisis and also a security crisis in the region and beyond.

I am a new member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I have to say that I have quickly come to admire Senator Murphy for his forceful advocacy of our values of universal human rights and of American international leadership. So I commend him for his leadership on this issue in particular.

I share many of the concerns articulated by Senator Murphy with regard to the situation in Yemen and the Saudi-led coalition there in that country. Before getting into the specific situation in Yemen, however, I think it is important to step back and look at the big picture.

The world currently confronts humanitarian crises of a magnitude we haven't seen in many, many years. Parts of Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen are all in famine or prefamine stages. According to the United Nations, 20 million people are at risk of starvation within the next few months in these four countries.

The Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross appeared before our Senate Foreign Relations Committee just weeks ago, and he called the crises ``one of the most critical humanitarian issues to face mankind since the end of the Second World War.'' He warned that ``we are at the brink of a humanitarian mega-crisis unprecedented in recent history.''

Each of these crises are unique. They have their unique man-made causes. But in each case, the crises are preventable. They have been exacerbated by war and restrictions on humanitarian access. Now, they are complicated. The situation in Yemen is certainly a complicated one. But the United Nations calls the situation in Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. According to their Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Yemen has almost 19 million people in need of humanitarian or protection assistance, including approximately 10 million who require immediate assistance to save their lives or to sustain their lives.

This is an urgent matter, which is why I am so glad we have the leadership of Senator Murphy on this matter and some of my other colleagues on various fronts. This is why I led a 10-Member letter to Secretary Tillerson on March 23 calling for a diplomatic surge to address the political obstacles preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid. I note that Senator Murphy joined me on that letter, which I personally hand-delivered to Secretary Tillerson. It is also why I raised the issue with Ambassador Haley in New York City. It is why I introduced a resolution on April 5 calling for the very same thing. Senators Cardin, Boozman, Coons, Gardner, and Rubio joined that resolution.

Throughout this process, rather than just studying the problem, I-- working with my colleagues--have tried to focus on tangible steps we can take to save lives and address this very troubling national security situation. For that reason, on April 27, joined by Senator Murphy and several other colleagues, I sent a letter to the incoming Saudi Ambassador. Noting the important security partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia's essential role as a regional leader and an ally and a partner, I asked Riyadh to consider five specific steps related to Yemen that would prevent thousands or even millions of additional people from starving there.

There is no doubt that the Houthis and the Iranians bear a very large portion of the blame for this whole situation. I asked our ally Saudi Arabia to take these steps because the United States has a valuable security relationship with Saudi Arabia and because we can oppose Iran's activities in Yemen while ending unnecessary delays in the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian assistance. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't receive a satisfactory response, so I subsequently raised these issues with the Saudi Foreign Minister in a meeting on Capitol Hill. In that meeting, I cited the fact--confirmed again by the administration within the last week--that the Saudi-led coalition continues to impose significant delays on the delivery of humanitarian aid to the port of Hodeidah on the Red Sea. Again, this is important because the port of Hodeidah processes roughly 70 to 80 percent of Yemen's food and other critical imports. I mentioned to the Foreign Minister the U.S.-funded cranes for the port of Hodeidah that would dramatically improve the ability to offload humanitarian supplies at that port. I expressed concerns to the

Foreign Minister about the humanitarian impact of an attack on the port of Hodeidah. Yet, as the suffering of the Yemeni people continues and even worsens, these issues regretfully remain unresolved.

According to the administration--confirmed again this morning--the Saudi-led coalition continues to be responsible for an average of 16 days of additional delays to humanitarian shipments into the port of Hodeidah after vessels are cleared by the United Nations Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen. Think about it. Your children are starving to death. Perhaps your entire village is starving to death. And you have a delay of an additional 16 days in humanitarian shipments. Think of the impact that has on security in the region as desperate people are forced to take desperate measures to associate themselves with bad actors in the area. It is certainly troubling to me.

For that reason, I have decided to cosponsor Senator Murphy's legislation, S.J. Res. 40. Before the United States can transfer air- to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia, the legislation requires the President of the United States to make a number of certifications. One of those includes a certification that Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners are making demonstrable efforts to facilitate the flow of critical humanitarian aid and commercial goods. I don't believe the President could credibly make that assertion until the Saudis take some of the steps I have called for.

As President Trump prepares his visit to Saudi Arabia, I urge him to raise these critical issues with the Saudi Government. I urge our President to emphasize that these are humanitarian and national security issues that are priorities of the American people. I urge the administration to ask the Saudi Government to take the following concrete actions: First, renounce any intention to conduct a military operation against the port of Hodeidah; second, redouble efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution; third, end any delays to the delivery of humanitarian aid caused by the Saudi-led coalition; and fourth, permit the delivery of much needed U.S. funded cranes to the port of Hodeidah that would permit the quicker delivery of food and medicine.

I have said it before: With more than 10 million Yemenis requiring immediate humanitarian assistance, there is no time to waste. I stand ready to work with our Saudi partners to fight Iran's malign influence and to take these specific steps to begin to address the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Yemen.

I again thank Senator Murphy for his leadership and for the opportunity to join him on the floor today. I look forward to working together again in the future.

It is a critical question, and it is one I have been asking so many stakeholders involved in this issue. No one has presented to me persuasive evidence indicating that a Saudi-led attack on the port would result in defeat of the Houthis-Saleh bloc. No one has presented to me evidence that I find compelling that that action would even force the Houthis bloc to the negotiating table.

The onus ought to be on those who might take a military action--which would exacerbate the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--to present that evidence. I have asked for it. I haven't received it.

I think it is just as likely that an attack would push the Houthis, as I alluded to earlier, into further alignment with and dependence on the Iranians, with whom they are allied. That is the exact opposite of what we are trying to accomplish in the region, as the Iranians continue to spread their influence and their terroristic activities across the Middle East. So this is not in the interests, as I see it, based on all the evidence available, of the United States, UAE, or Saudi Arabia, and it would result in both a humanitarian catastrophe and exacerbate the national security situation.

Indeed. The last thing we want to do is to exacerbate a situation where we already have 10 million desperate people on the cusp of starvation or passing away on account of a lack of medical supplies.

We need assistance here, which is why it is important for the President to elevate the importance of this issue in his conversation with the Saudis during his coming visit, and I believe he will do so. I believe he will do so because the international community, NGOs, understand the importance of this. Many at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development have spoken about what a serious crisis this is. And we don't want to be shortsighted with respect to what a bombing of the port could catalyze.

We also need to recognize that there are other players in the Saudi coalition that can be constructive as well. The Emirates, I would note, have shown a willingness to be helpful on a couple of different fronts.

I had the opportunity to visit with the Crown Prince yesterday and received his assurance that he would seek to resolve without delay a situation related to the forward stationing of inspectors in his country so that they can pre-inspect cargo before it goes into the port of Hodeidah, and that would expedite the process and help mitigate a lot of the suffering that is occurring. Also, I had an opportunity to discuss with the Crown Prince this issue of four cranes. U.S. taxpayers paid for these cranes. I mentioned them in my prepared remarks earlier. And I have heard from the Crown Prince; he made a commitment there as well. So I am grateful for his commitment, and I look forwarding to following up with the UAE Government on this front. They are good allies to the United States.

I say to the Senator, let me end by reiterating my gratitude to you, of course, for your exceptional leadership, for walking points on this issue, and I look forward to our continued work together.

I thank all our colleagues who have engaged on this matter. And I, of course, before the U.S. Senate here, want to invite others to engage in this. If they have questions with respect to this matter, which is critical for our national security, I know they can reach out to the Senator or me, and it is imperative that we send a respectful message to the administration that we think this is something that needs to be addressed in the near term.

I have nothing else to say.

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, 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, 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.