Boosting Entrepreneurship and New Jobs Act

Madam President, I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan with Senator Al Franken. We heard a great deal of troubling news out of Afghanistan over the past few months. Casualties have increased and the political situation has been unsettled. Based on what we saw and heard during our trip, I am somewhat more optimistic that we will succeed in Afghanistan. I am a lot more optimistic now than after my last visit to Afghanistan in September. Success, to me, is defined as preventing the Taliban from returning to power at the same time we strengthen the Afghan security forces to take responsibility for Afghan security in order to ensure stability in Afghanistan.

Over the course of 3 days, we met with key civilian and military leaders in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, we met with Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani; Army Chief of Staff Kayani; and a leader from the opposition party, Ahsan Iqbal. Pakistan has taken some steps to take on elements of the Pakistan Taliban and al-Qaida but has been for the most part unwilling to take on the Afghan Taliban which uses Quetta in the south of Pakistan and North Waziristan in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas as safe havens and to attack Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, we met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry; GEN Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF; LTG David Rodriguez, Commander of the ISAF Joint Command; LTG William Caldwell, who leads the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan; and British MG Nick Carter, Commander of ISAF forces in Regional Command South. We also met with key Afghan officials, in particular President Karzai, Minister of Defense Wardak; and Minister of the Interior Atmar. Outside Kabul, we traveled to bases in Kandahar province, where we met with Canadian and American ISAF troops who are fully embedded in a partnership, i.e., living side-by- side with Afghan security forces.

Our men and women in uniform are performing magnificently. We visited with our troops in the field in Kandahar, and they are living and operating in a difficult environment with only basic accommodations. Yet their morale is high and they are eager to carry out their mission. And they have some of the best leadership our military has to offer in ISAF Commander GEN Stanley McChrystal, Lieutenant General Rodriguez, and Lieutenant General Caldwell. On the civilian side, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and his team are putting in place the diplomatic and technical expertise in Kabul and the field to match our military effort.

One reason I am more optimistic now than when I visited Afghanistan in September is our counterinsurgency strategy is taking hold. Our troops are comfortable with the new focus on securing the Afghan people. This requires that our troops remain with the Afghan people and not just clearing towns and villages of Taliban and then leaving the Afghans to fend for themselves when the Taliban return. Our troops understand and embrace this people-centered approach. As British MG Nick Carter, Commander of the coalition forces in the south, said:

If we show confidence and mutual trust, the population will

look after us.

The Afghan people are more optimistic than they have been in the recent past. A recent ABC News survey found that 70 percent of the Afghans polled said Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, a significant jump from a year ago. Over 60 percent of Afghans expect their children will have a better life. The Taliban remain extremely unpopular, and 68 percent of Afghans continue to support the presence of our troops in their country.

I have long been convinced that our principal mission in Afghanistan should be training the Afghan security forces. That drove my belief that we should not focus on adding more U.S. combat forces, except where we needed to train, equip, and support Afghan security forces.

As I put it when the President was considering additional combat forces, I supported a show of commitment but said commitment could be shown by additional trainers and support personnel, along with a flow of equipment to Afghan forces. I expressed then and believe now our major mission should be a surge of Afghan forces to take on the Taliban. Afghan security forces will ultimately win or lose the long battle with the Taliban. Our support will help, but our growing presence has a downside: a growing footprint, which is the physical and rhetorical propaganda target for the Taliban.

We heard in our conversations that President Obama's West Point speech in December has had a tangible, positive impact in ways that I believe are the most significant in Afghanistan. According to LTG Bill Caldwell, the head of our NATO training command, the number of new recruits signing up for the Afghan Army has skyrocketed from 3,000 in November to over 11,000 recruits in training today. The training command has had to turn recruits back because they didn't have enough trainers on hand. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, forcefully and clearly, that what energized the Afghan leadership to call for and to reach out to new

recruits was the July 2011 date President Obama set for the beginning of reductions in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Even more than the pay increase, which was announced for Afghan troops, Lieutenant General Caldwell said setting that date by President Obama made clear to the Afghan Government and to the Afghan people that President Obama means business when he says our presence in Afghanistan is not an open-ended commitment. Afghan leaders became focused on planning for the shift in principal responsibility from coalition forces to their forces that is highlighted by that July 2011 date, and they took urgent steps to increase recruitment to the Afghan Army. While it is too early to determine if the surge in U.S. combat forces will have the effect President Obama and General McChrystal intend, it is not too early, in other words, to see a positive effect toward accomplishing the mission of strengthening and training the Afghan Army.

A key to the success of that mission will be partnering with the Afghan security forces. In Regional Command South's Kandahar area, which we visited, coalition and Afghan units are partnering on a one- to-one basis at all levels, from planning at the headquarters down to operations at the platoon level, and Afghans are taking the lead in operations. When I visited Helmand Province in the south in September, there were about five U.S. marines for every one Afghan soldier. In the coming months, additional Afghan forces will be arriving in Helmand so, by April, coalition and Afghan units will be partnered on a one-to-one basis as they conduct the key mission of providing security in the Helmand River Valley. We were informed Afghan forces will be leading that vital and dangerous mission.

Senator Franken and I saw up close how partnering of coalition and Afghan forces is being put into operation. This is not just about joint operations, though that is part of it. It is about Afghan and coalition troops living together and integrating their daily lives. This partnering is at the heart of our troops' mission, which is to prepare Afghan security forces to take responsibility for their nation's security. Some fully integrating partnering in the field is already occurring. General Rodriguez promised us he will get data on how many of the units in the field that are planning and operating with coalition units are fully integrated and how often and how many Afghan units are leading significant operations. While we didn't need more combat troops for the partnering mission--the shortfall being in the number of Afghan troops--the increase in Afghan units partnering with us is a significant advance.

Our military leaders often describe our counterinsurgency doctrine as shape, clear, hold, and build. But this falls short by one key goal. To shape, clear, hold, and build must be added ``transition,'' meaning our goal must be to transition responsibility for Afghanistan's security to their security forces. The commanders in the field we talked to get this, and their fully integrated partnering with Afghan security forces is the key to this transition.

While I am pleased with the speed with which partnering is occurring in the field, I am disappointed with the shortfall in trainers needed for the Afghan Army and police. Currently, only 37 percent of the required U.S. and NATO trainers for building the Afghan Army and police are on hand in Afghanistan or, numerically, 1,574 out of a requirement for more than 4,235 trainers. Lieutenant General Caldwell's training command has been promised the first 1,000 of the 30,000 U.S. soldiers flowing into the theater with that surge, and 150 of that 1,000 have already arrived. At the same time, NATO countries remain 90 percent short of meeting the ISAF mission requirements for trainers with less than 200 non-U.S. trainers deployed against a non-U.S. NATO commitment of about 2,000. Only 200 have arrived on the scene. Another 200 NATO trainers were pledged by NATO members in December but without a timeline for when those trainers would arrive in theater. That is simply unacceptable. Those NATO countries that are either unwilling or unable to send additional combat troops into the fight in Afghanistan should be able to help provide trainers for basic training who operate away from the frontlines. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, any well-trained U.S. or coalition soldier could instruct Afghan soldiers in the 8-week course of basic training. A top priority for our NATO allies at the London conference, which I believe is this week, needs to be closing the gap in trainers for the Afghan Army and police.

Another area where there has been progress is on equipping the Afghan security forces, and that is critical to accelerating the growth of the Afghan Army and police.

The training command reports that the equipment requirements for the Army and police have been identified and listed, and actions are underway to meet those needs, including with equipment coming out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down there. This month, equipment began to flow from the Iraq theater to Afghanistan, and Lieutenant General Caldwell's staff expects that over 250 of over 1,300 humvees from Iraq will begin to arrive this month to meet the needs of the Afghan police. This was made possible by the language in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the transfer of nonexcess as well as excess defense equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan as U.S. forces draw down in Iraq.

Finally, relative to plans for the reintegration of lower level Taliban fighters, the Karzai government has been working closely with General McChrystal's staff, under the leadership of a British major general, to construct a plan offering incentives to low- and mid-level Taliban fighters who are willing to lay down their weapons and recognize the Afghan Government's authority. Incentives would include amnesty and jobs programs for reintegrating former fighters. President Karzai has said he will be ready to issue this plan within a month or so, and U.S. officials expect to be fully supportive. It will take a few months after that to make the plan operational. While there is apparently no progress to negotiate with higher level Taliban to end the violence and become politically active, it does not reduce the need to chip away at that lower level Taliban group.

We read in the press today that progress is being made, as a matter of fact, with local leaders in Afghanistan in that endeavor.

In conclusion, we saw some signs of progress on our visit in a number of critical ways--in training and equipping Afghan security forces; in partnering closely in the field with the Afghan security forces; in a perception and reality of optimism among the military, civilian officials, and the Afghan people; and in devising a plan for reintegrating Taliban fighters who lay down their arms. We have the right strategy and mission for stabilizing the security situation and transitioning responsibility for Afghanistan's future to the Afghan Army and people. While we are on the right track now, we have a long way to go before we can feel confident that the tide has turned.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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, 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.