Refugee Opportunity Act

Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I hope the American people watched and heard President Obama's speech last night and were reassured. I know I was. There are so many things that he covered, I will not try to repeat all of them. I would like to expand on one of the very important matters he raised. On this, I will wear my hat as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision threatens to allow corporations to drown out the individual voices of hard-working Americans in our elections. By overturning years of work in Congress, years of work by both Republicans and Democrats alike--campaign finance laws, and by reversing a century of its own precedent, the conservative, activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections. The Citizens United decision turns the idea of government of, by, and for the people on its head. It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

Congress, on behalf of the American people, struggled for years to enact campaign finance reform. Virtually every American wanted campaign finance reform. We finally did that in a bipartisan way in the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold Act overcoming a filibuster and passing it with a bipartisan supermajority. This milestone campaign finance reform strengthened the laws, protecting the interests of all Americans by ensuring a fair electoral process. It was a matter of serious consideration by Congress, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In the 2003 case McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the McCain- Feingold Act against a First Amendment challenge. That was consistent with 100 years of judicial precedent and law, including a longstanding criminal law prohibiting corporations from contributing to Federal election campaigns. We have long prevented corporate contributions to Federal campaigns, at least since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt. The prohibitions included in the Tillman Act were signed into law in 1907.

Now only 6 years after upholding 100 years of precedent, resolving the question in McConnell, and after a number of other Supreme Court opinions upholding these campaign regulations as needed to ensure fairness in elections, a thin majority of the Supreme Court, made possible by President Bush's appointment of Justice Alito, has thrown out important parts of the law, and they have run roughshod over a long line of longstanding Court precedent. This is a threat to the rule of law. It overrules congressional efforts to keep powerful, monied interests from swamping individual voices and interests. This decision puts the special interests of big oil, banks and insurance companies ahead of the interests of the American people, and it risks corrupting our political process. It shows no deference to Congress and no respect for the rule of law as reflected in

the precedents of the Supreme Court. I agree with Justice Stevens, who wrote in his extraordinary dissent in Citizens United:

[T]he court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity

of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has

taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this

institution.

At his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito, under oath, testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly but also has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over the bounds and invading the authority of Congress. That was then when he was seeking confirmation. This is now. As Justice Stevens' dissent makes clear, the narrow majority of the Justices, including Justice Alito, substituted their own preferences for those of the duly-elected Congress, despite 100 years of the Supreme Court's own precedents.

This is the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. That decision by the activist conservative bloc on the Supreme Court intervened in a presidential election. This decision is broader and more damaging in that they have now decided to intervene in all elections. Just as in Bush v. Gore, last week, the conservative activists currently on the Supreme Court unnecessarily went beyond the proper judicial role to substitute their preferences for the law. Last week's decision is only the latest example--yet perhaps the most extreme--of the willingness of a narrow majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to suit their own ideological agenda.

I believe that the activist conservatives now on the Supreme Court got this decision dramatically wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation and also common sense. Corporations are not the same as individual American men and women. They do not have the same rights, the same morals, the same ideals. They do not vote. They do not have the same role in our election as individual citizens. When the Supreme Court made its landmark decision to ensure election fairness through the constitutional protection of the principle of one-person-one-vote, it did the right thing. Last week, the conservative bloc undermined that core constitutional principle by imposing its view that moneyed corporations should dominate the airwaves and election discourse. Rather than abiding by the limitations that Congress has developed to ensure a multitude of voices in the marketplace of election contests, they decided that the biggest corporations should be unleashed so that they can be the loudest and most dominant at the expense of our democratic principles.

At the core of the first amendment is the right of individual Americans--individual men and women--to participate in the political process, to speak and, crucially, to be heard. That is what the campaign finance laws were designed to ensure; that American men and women could be heard and fairly participate in elections. This right is fundamental to the legitimacy of our democracy--to our ability to govern ourselves because it is the foundation of our other rights.

Last week's decision puts these inalienable rights at risk by ignoring not only the extensive findings of Congress in passing the law but also logic and reality. The loud megaphones that can be bought by corporate money can drown out the unamplified voices of individual Americans. This is true even in an age when the Internet has vastly expanded avenues for citizens to speak to each other. The campaign finance laws passed by Congress reflected clear reasons for treating individuals and their free speech rights differently from corporations and their money. We have done so for at least 100 years. We sought additional reforms after the corruption of Watergate, and again at the turn of this new century. Those reforms and reasonable regulation are now left in tatters.

The purported principles of the conservative activists cannot be limited to section 441b of title 2 of the United States Code, as amended by section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. If corporations can use their wealth to make independent expenditures for electioneering because they are now suddenly being given, by five people on the Supreme Court, constitutional rights in elections, what can prevent them from contributing to individual campaigns? What principle allows us to bar foreign corporations--foreign corporations--from likewise engaging in campaign communications?

The largest companies garner annual profits of hundreds of billions of dollars. They are doing this even during one of the greatest financial disasters in our Nation's history. If even a fraction of that money were directed toward political activity, those companies would have the financial power to dominate and determine this country's elections and the laws of this country. To put this in perspective, as Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center pointed out after the decision, if Exxon-Mobil diverted only two percent of the $45 billion in profits it generated in 2008, ``this one company could have outspent both presidential candidates and fundamentally changed the dynamic of the 2008 election.'' The same could be said for numerous other companies who will now be able to dwarf the contributions and voices of individual Americans.

The risks of this new ruling extend even further. The conservative activist majority in Citizens United fails to make clear whether the new ``rights'' it has conferred are limited to American corporations or if they apply to foreign corporations. Can the Chinese or subsidiaries of Chinese corporations or Saudi oil companies now also spend unlimited amounts of money and come in and decide, in effect, American elections?

Saudi Aramco is estimated to be worth $781 billion. Petro China's estimated net worth is $100 billion, with profits rivaling Exxon Mobil's, in the tens of billions each year. Likewise, Venezuelan oil takes in tens of billions a year. A German insurance company named Allianz is worth $2.5 trillion. Another insurance concern, ING Group, is valued around $2 trillion. HSBC Holdings is valued at almost $2.5 trillion, with annual sales of almost $150 billion. Bank of American itself has sales of over $100 billion a year. Then there are the Wall Street firms and investment houses, which certainly will not support planned banking industry reforms.

It is hard to envision this is what the Founders, who threw off the shackles of oppression, meant to enshrine in the Constitution when they wrote the First Amendment. It is also hard to understand how these conservative activists, who sound incessant alarm bells about the dangers of applying foreign law and recognizing rights for noncitizens in our courts, now cannot understand the threat of this encroachment on the very core of our democracy. The Citizens United decision is disconnected from the plain text and history of the Constitution, the careful policy choices of the elected branches, and the guidance of the Supreme Court's own legal precedents and the rule of law.

I am also disappointed with the Justices, who as nominees before the Senate, when they were testifying under oath, proclaimed their belief in judicial modesty and judicial restraint, could then turn around and so brazenly ignore the proper judicial role and in so cavalier a manner overturn Supreme Court precedent and override the rule of law. In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that ``there were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken.'' In deciding an unnecessarily broad question--when the parties themselves advanced numerous, narrower grounds of decision--the ``majority has transgressed yet another `cardinal' principle of the judicial process.''

I cannot remember a time in my 36 years in the Senate when I have come to this floor to criticize even decisions I disagree with, but this one I am because it goes to the very core of our democracy, and it will allow major corporations, which should have laws written to control their effect on America, to instead control America. That is not the America I grew up in. It is not the America Vermonters believe in, where individuals have a right to speak but not mega corporations.

How did the Court come to the opposite conclusion about the rights of corporations to spend unlimited money on elections from that enshrined in our laws and prior Supreme Court decisions? Did we amend the Constitution to somehow equate corporations to people? No, we did not. Nowhere does the Constitution even mention corporations. Did we modify the first

amendment? No. The first amendment reads as it did 6 years ago--indeed, as it did 219 years ago, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the 14th State in the Union--Vermont--ratified the Constitution.

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent:

The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and

McConnell is the composition of the court.

Six years ago Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the Supreme Court's majority upholding the limits on corporate spending in the McCain-Feingold Act, retired. The meaning of the Constitution should not change from one year to another due to the replacement of one Justice. As the dissenting Justices noted:

[T]he final principle of judicial process that the majority

violates is the most transparent: stare decisis. . . . But if

this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the

rule of law, it must at least demand a significant

justification, beyond the preferences of five justices, for

overturning settled doctrine.

As judicial nominees often testify, the rule of law depends on the stability provided by the consistent application and interpretation of the Constitution and the laws. So does the ability of Congress to act to pass laws. The Latin phrase that lawyers use to talk about the importance of respecting and following prior court rulings or precedent is ``stare decisis.''

As Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent:

Stare decisis protects not only personal rights involving

property or contract but also the ability of the elected

branches to shape their laws in an effective and coherent

fashion.

That is why every Supreme Court nominee that I can recall who has appeared before the Judiciary Committee has been asked whether he or she is committed to following precedent. This is central to assuring us and the country that a Justice will be committed to the rule of law and understands the role of a judge. Courts should only depart from precedent with ample justification. As Justice Stevens wrote in dissent:

No such justification exists in this case, and to the

contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep the

faith with our precedents.

The same five Justices willing to overturn well-established precedent to create broad new rights for corporations in Citizens United had no trouble severely limiting free speech rights for individuals. In a 2007 case, Morse v. Frederick, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, held that the First Amendment did not protect an 18-year-old student from being suspended for holding up a banner across the street from a school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. They held the principal could suspend that student, a legal adult, for displaying the banner, not on school grounds, but across the street from the school. All that was needed was for the school administrator to believe that the banner somehow promoted illegal drug use and was therefore against the school's policy. Perhaps if that student had incorporated, these five Justices would now find his First Amendment rights protected. These are the same Justices who recently reached out to ban the streaming of public trial proceedings on a matter of public interest, as well, on similarly flimsy grounds in order to impose their own preferences.

It is also difficult to understand the lack of concern in Citizens United for the potential of massive corporate spending to distort elections in light of the Supreme Court's ruling issued only months ago in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote that the possibility of bias due to campaign contributions in a state judicial election meant that the judge was wrong not to recuse himself from deciding a case involving a defendant who had spent $3 million supporting his election campaign to the bench. I agreed with that decision. There, Justice Kennedy wrote:

We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias--

based on objective and reasonable perceptions--when a person

with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant

and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the

case by raising funds or directing the judge's election

campaign when the case was pending or imminent.

What I do not understand is how these same standards and obvious logic were not applied to corporate spending in election campaigns.

Last week's decision and its troubling inconsistency with the Court's other interpretations of the Constitution leaves with us serious questions about how to ensure that our elections are not corrupted by unchecked corporate spending. It also reinforces the profound concern I have had about the real-world consequences of the Supreme Court's recent decisions for hard-working Americans--real Americans--on issues such as equal pay for equal work; the power of Congress under the 14th and 15th amendment, to pass civil rights laws, such as the Voting Rights Act; and issues thought to be long settled, such as the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education. The newly constituted Supreme Court seems determined to accrue to itself the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and to rewrite long-established precedents, certainly acting contrary to what these same Justices said in their sworn testimony when they were being confirmed. The Judiciary Committee has explored these concerns in a series of recent hearings, and we will hold a hearing soon to examine the impact of the Citizens United decision. This case is just the latest example of why every seat on the highest court affects the lives of everyday Americans.

I think every one of us, as Americans, must work to ensure that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders is not cast aside by the whimsical preferences of five Justices overriding the rights of 300 million Americans. I look forward to working with President Obama and Senators from both sides of the aisle as we try to restore the ability of every American to be heard and effectively participate in free and fair elections.

Again, I can only emphasize that I do not recall a time in my 36 years coming here to speak about Supreme Court decisions I disagree with, even though there have been many. But this is so egregious that, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would feel I was neglecting my duties if I did not come and speak against it.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2960 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I am introducing today the Boosting Entrepreneurship and New Jobs Act that I believe is desperately needed. I think it is very clear that our economy, which is coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, has turned a corner. But we need to create more jobs in America. We know that. We know that 1 out of 10 Americans who wish to work cannot find jobs. Our first responsibility must be to help create more jobs so our economy can rebound and grow. To do that, we need to invest in small businesses.

I was pleased to hear the President of the United States last night talk about the importance of small business in our recovery. As we develop our policies, we need to focus on helping small businesses grow. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we took action and increased the loan limits under the Small Business Administration. We were able to make it less expensive for businesses to borrow from the Small Business Administration. These were good steps we took. I was proud of an amendment I offered to increase the surety bond limits so small construction companies could, in fact, get work in this economy. I was proud of the amendment that passed to increase the SBA's budget by about $180 million so they could have the capacity to help small companies with technical assistance in order to get government jobs. All of that has happened.

We all know 99.7 percent of all firms in America are small businesses. That is the economic engine of America. Just over half of the private sector employees work for small companies. We have to pay attention to small companies if we are going to grow out of this economic problem. Forty-four percent of the total U.S. private payroll comes from small employers. Sixty-four percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years came from small businesses. And 97.3 percent of all identified exporters came from small companies. On a per-employee basis, for those companies that applied for patents, small companies have 13 times more patents per employee than larger companies. That is where innovation comes from in New Hampshire, and I can tell my colleagues that in Maryland, I look at companies every day, small companies coming up with the innovations that will lead America into the future. They come up with the new ways to deal with our problems. It is the small companies that are the most prolific in providing that type of innovation to our society, whether it is Maryland, New Hampshire, or any of our States. So it is for that reason that I have introduced this legislation.

This legislation would provide some additional tools to help small businesses create new jobs. We need new jobs. It establishes a temporary 3-year refundable tax credit for new hires by small businesses. Businesses with up to 25 employees would be eligible for a refundable tax credit equal to 15 percent of the first $20,000 of wages for new hires. That is a strong incentive for a company to put on new employees. It establishes a credit to help small companies deal with providing health benefits for their employees.

The two issues I hear about most from small businesses is the affordability of health insurance and the availability of credit. Both are dealt with through this legislation by providing a way in which small companies can have more affordable health insurance and by providing a way in which small companies can directly access SBA loans.

Following up on what the President said last night, this legislation will set aside $30 billion from the TARP funds so that small companies could directly get SBA loans. I think that is the way to do it because there is a reluctance among banks to lend money to small businesses even though today 90 percent of that loan is guaranteed by the SBA. My legislation would use the same standard for SBA to make direct loans-- so basically 100 percent guaranteed by the Federal Government rather than 90 percent. Then we know the loans will be made.

I can't tell my colleagues how many companies I have talked to in Maryland who are creditworthy. They are prepared to hire more workers. They are prepared to believe in our economy and believe in our future. The problem is they don't have a bank to partner with. If they have an existing relationship with a community bank, they may be OK. But if they don't, to try to establish a relationship today is very difficult.

The President recognized that last night when he talked about the credit crunch affecting small businesses. We haven't eased that. This legislation would provide for the SBA, using the same standards it uses today for their SBA loans, to make direct loans to small companies in order to get our economy back on track by helping small businesses. It will create more jobs. It increases the SBA 7(a) program from $2 million to $5 million. It increases the microloan program from $35,000 to $50,000. It increases the SBA 504 loan program from $1.5 million to $5.5 million. These increases in loan limits are desperately needed if we are going to be realistic in today's marketplace as the type of loans businesses need in order to expand jobs.

There are two more things this bill does that I wish to mention that are a direct help to small business. One is the sense of the Congress that the SBA Administrator should be a Cabinet-level position. I think we need to make sure an advocate for small business has the ear of our President. We know what happened in 2009. We know we had to bail out Wall Street and we had to deal with the large banks in order to save our system from going off a cliff. We all understand that. But we also know there were certain commitments made to help small businesses. Yet it never got into your community banks, into your States or to your small businesses. We need the advocate for small businesses to have a direct line to the President. For that reason, I urge that the SBA Administrator be a part of the Cabinet.

Another part of the bill expresses a sense of Congress that the financial institutions that have benefited from our bailout carry out what they said they would do; that is, loan money to small companies. They say they are doing it, but the evidence shows the reverse, that they are not making these types of loans. I think it would be interesting to see exactly what types of loans these banks that relied upon the Federal Government are making to help our communities. I think we all would be disappointed to see their lack of participation in small company financing which could create jobs in our communities.

The last provision of the bill provides for offsets to make sure it is fully paid. I don't believe we should add to the deficit. I think this bill will help create jobs, help us deal with the economic growth of America, and deal with narrowing the budget deficit through economic growth. I think we all have a responsibility to make sure we have adequate offsets in the bill so we don't add further to the Federal deficit. That is called budget discipline. We talked about that a little bit on the floor of the Senate today. This bill is fully paid for through offsets.

I urge my colleagues, as we look in the weeks ahead at what we will call a jobs bill, which will help put more Americans to work--and I fully support that--that we follow the leadership of our President. The first thing he mentioned in the State of the Union Address last night was that we ought to pay attention to small businesses. I agree with the President. I hope that is a major part of our jobs bill; that it will be provisions that will provide tax credits for new job hires, help for small businesses dealing with health insurance and that it will increase the SBA's capacity to make loans to small businesses and will, indeed, provide a new avenue for opening credit to small businesses, putting the spotlight on the banking community so they do more, as they should, to help small businesses grow so we can create new jobs and grow our economy. That should be our first priority. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate and work with the administration so we can get the job done in the Senate.

Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that.

One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives.

In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation.

Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection.

One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card.

To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support.

Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks.

There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said.

I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that.

One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives.

In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation.

Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection.

One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card.

To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support.

Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks.

There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said.

I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. President, in 2009 the Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP programs accounted for over $800 billion of the $2.3 trillion spent on health care in the U.S. Together, these programs constitute around 35 percent of national health spending. With so much taxpayer money at stake, it is no surprise that all this spending brings crooks, scam artists and even organized crime out of the woodwork.

Low estimates are that fraudsters steal $60 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs every year. As Federal health care spending continues to skyrocket, so will the dollars lost to fraud, waste and abuse.

This is a crime against not only the taxpayer, but against each and every beneficiary who depends on these programs for their health care. The examples of fraud are all around us. In a 60 Minutes segment late last year, we saw a medical supply company that billed Medicare $2 million last July--despite being empty and having apparently no staff.

One man interviewed said he was waking up every day making $20,000- $40,000. Every single day. He said it was like winning the lottery, and you and me and every taxpayer were footing the bill. He was running a fake medical supply company that didn't actually sell any medical equipment to anyone. He says he stole at least $20 million from Medicare. He said it was, ``real easy.''

This must change.

I don't think Members on either side of the aisle dispute this. Back when health care reform was a bipartisan endeavor, I developed a set of legislative proposals with Senator Baucus to combat fraud, waste and abuse. These proposals are in the bill that the Finance Committee reported as well as the health care reform bill that the Senate passed late last year. And these provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle. Tackling fraud, waste and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement.

That is why I am here today to introduce the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act. This legislation includes the critical measures that I developed on a bipartisan basis. This bill also includes legislation and amendments I have subsequently introduced to strengthen these proposals to address fraud, waste and abuse.

They are designed to deter, detect and prevent those that would steal from Federal health care programs, to assist those tasked with catching these criminals, and to protect taxpayer dollars. These commonsense changes will go a long way in helping to make sure Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP dollars are going to bona fide providers, instead of fraudsters set on scamming the system.

This legislation would make it harder for fraudsters to enroll in Federal health programs as providers and bilk the system. This includes requiring meaningful screening of health care providers and suppliers. Additional tools would also be provided to prevent fraud, waste and abuse including enhanced oversight measures, disclosure requirements, authority to impose enrollment moratoriums and requirements for developing compliance programs.

This bill would impose additional requirements on providers and suppliers to ensure that bona fide providers are billing Federal health programs for bona fide items and services. This includes providing documentation or performing a face-to-face evaluation before certifying a beneficiary's eligibility for an item or service.

It would also improve Federal monitoring for fraud, waste and abuse by requiring better data sharing and data

access across the Federal government. Government agencies would be able to share information with each other in an effort to identify crooks in the system promptly. It would also create a national clearinghouse of information so we can better detect and prevent and thereby deter medical identity theft. Again, this is about the Federal Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the Taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system and hopefully deter those who are thinking about stealing from you.

The legislation takes several steps to end the current ``pay and chase'' model of Federal health care spending. It takes the commonsense approach of allowing the government to withhold taxpayer dollars from those under investigation for health care fraud.

It would change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay providers quickly, regardless of the risk of fraud, waste, or abuse. Under current law, the government is required to make payment for a ``clean'' claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if the claim is legitimate before the payment has to be made. The result is that this ``prompt payment rule'' requires that Medicare pay fraudsters first, and ask questions later.

This requirement doesn't make any sense. This bill would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to ask questions first and then and only then to make the payment if the health care provider and the payment for services check out. The Secretary would also be required to suspend payments pending the investigation of credible allegations of fraud against the provider or supplier.

This legislation would also increase funding for those fighting health care fraud. Study after study has shown that every dollar spent fighting health care fraud is repaid multiple times over in funds recovered and fraud prevented. This is a good investment for the taxpayer and bad news for health care fraudsters.

This bill would provide powerful disincentives for those that would rob the taxpayer through health care fraud. It would better arm those fighting fraud with tools to catch and prosecute fraudsters. It also would make the consequences for committing health care fraud more meaningful by increasing civil monetary penalties and expanding the types of acts and omissions that would be subject to civil monetary penalties and exclusion from Federal health programs.

This legislation would also strengthen the government's most powerful tool for preventing and recovering taxpayer dollars lost to fraud, the False Claims Act. It also ensures that courageous whistleblowers that come forward to speak up against fraud and file False Claims Act cases are protected from retaliation by their employers.

These changes would go a long way to deter those who would defraud our health care programs. It also would provide greater protections to the taxpayer. In these difficult economic times, we have got to do everything we can to protect taxpayer dollars and the resources of health care programs on which so many Americans depend.