Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

PRESCRIPTION DRUG USER FEE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 08, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for a long time in Washington, if you talked about a deadline or a timetable, the response from the President, from the administration, even from the Republican side of the aisle, was the same. When you talked about a specific end to this war, they argued: It endangers our troops.

I did not agree with that premise. In fact, I believed this was the only way to convince the Iraqis we were not going to stay forever. If they think the very best military in the world, the American military forces, will stay there indefinitely, there is no incentive for them to make the right decisions, the hard decisions to govern their own country.

Well, time has passed at great cost to our Nation. As of this morning, we have lost 3,361 of our best and brightest soldiers--3,361. The month of April was the deadliest month this year in Iraq: 104 American soldiers lost their lives. I think we all understand now that as each day passes, more American soldiers are in danger and, sadly, more will give their lives. So to wait for a month, two or three or four, is, sadly, to extend that period of time of danger.

Now we find from Republican leaders a new approach. No longer are they rejecting the idea of deadlines or timetables. In fact, they are starting to speak in more specific terms.

This is a quote from the Republican leader of the House, JOHN BOEHNER, who said:

By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B?

That, to me, sounds like a deadline of September or October.

Then, of course, our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, said:

I do think this fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding areas.

I think it is an indication that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the same thing we hear when we go home: First, an immense pride in our men and women in uniform, pride as well in their families who have stood by them through this long struggle; an understanding of the sacrifices that are being made by our soldiers as well as those who love them so very much but, secondly, an understanding that this is a failed policy that the President is pursuing in Iraq.

This is the fifth year of this war. This war has lasted longer than World War II. It is now only exceeded in cost by the cost of World War II in today's dollars. It is an extremely expensive undertaking, first, in human life, with over 3,000 Americans dying, and then with thousands coming home injured, some very seriously injured, with traumatic brain injury and amputations.

Senator Murray of Washington has been a leader when it comes to the care for our returning soldiers and veterans. We know our system is breaking down and falling behind, increasing the sense of urgency I feel and many feel in Illinois, as I see them on the streets of Chicago and Springfield and all around my State. They understand this is a heavy cost we are paying.

When our friends on the Republican side of the aisle say all we need is maybe 4 or 5 more months, I hope they understand that time they are asking
for is time that will

have a heavy price. They want us to buy some time for political purposes but at a heavy price.

We think, and I hope they will come to understand, we need to tell the Iraqis now they have the responsibility to govern and lead. If they fail, then American troops are not going to stay there indefinitely. Some worry when American troops leave, there may be an unstable situation in Iraq. That is entirely possible. That can happen if we leave in 10 months, 10 years, or 15 years.

They have to understand the responsibility of the future of Iraq lies in the hands of the Iraqis. We cannot put that burden on American soldiers and their families any longer. I am heartened by these statements from the Republican side that finally they understand we cannot stay there forever, that the policy of this administration has not succeeded, that we owe it to soldiers and their families to treat them humanely, to let them know they will be coming home to a hero's welcome soon.

Our colleagues, Senator JIM WEBB and CARL LEVIN, as well as JACK REED, have spoken out about the readiness of our troops, too. I worry about that. As the President has extended this war, far beyond what anyone ever dreamed of, those who voted for that authorization of force, as he has extended this war, have put pressure on our soldiers beyond anything we could have imagined.

We have extended the tours of duty for National Guard members to the longest period of time since World War II. We now know many of our soldiers are asked to stay on an additional 3 months after they have served 12. We know when they come home, they do not receive the rest they were promised, the time with their family. They are quickly reactivated and sent into battle.

This has to have an impact on morale. It certainly has a negative impact on their families. So I believe as we talk about how this war is to be waged and what the next stage will be, regardless of what our plan may be, it has to include readiness and a commitment to these troops. I think it is important that we say to the President: Don't send a single soldier into harm's way or into combat unless they have had the time to rest, unless they have been retrained and equipped, unless they are prepared to go to battle with all of the forces they need to come home safely.

Shortchanging our soldiers is not a strategy that we should follow in Iraq. Let's come up with a plan to start bringing these troops home. We sent one to the President last week. He, in a press conference, told the American people he was going to reject it. We haven't heard anything back from him since then. But, in the meantime, many members of his own party have decided it is time for them to finally speak up. We welcome them. We need them. We need them particularly on this supplemental bill.

Mr. President, if a handful of Republican Senators will now cross the aisle and join us, we can have a positive impact on changing this failed policy in Iraq. We can finally stand as one in a bipartisan way and say there is a better way; that the Iraqis cannot take long vacations while the members of their parliament relax as our soldiers risk their lives. We have to tell the Iraqis we are not going to stay indefinitely.

When leaders such as Mr. Boehner of Ohio speak of plan B, just remember what the B stands for. The B stands for bring our soldiers home. That is what we need to start doing in an orderly, sensible way as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will again consider legislation to reform our broken immigration system. The Presiding Officer has been personally and deeply involved in this issue since coming to the Senate. I thank him for his leadership.

I think we all understand the challenge is substantial. If we want to solve the problem, we need a comprehensive approach that is tough but fair. We should improve border security by increasing manpower and deploying new technology. We should enforce the law against employers who are hiring millions of undocumented workers. And we need a realistic, honest approach to the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in our country illegally.

Most importantly, we must ensure that immigration reform legislation protects the American economy and American workers as well.

I am concerned about the H-1B visa program as it is currently structured. I am afraid it is being abused by foreign companies to deprive qualified Americans of good jobs.

To address this problem, Senator Grassley and I have introduced S. 1035, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud Abuse Prevention Act of 2007. This is a bipartisan bill. It would overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to protect American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers.

The H-1B visa program was designed to allow employers to attract and hire high-skilled foreign workers with specialized knowledge. H-1B visas are probably best known for their use in technology to import computer engineers and programmers.

I can't tell you how many leaders in industry, including one this afternoon, come into my office and say: We absolutely need H-1B visas. We can't find enough people with specialized education for our businesses. If you won't allow us to bring these workers in from overseas, we are going to be facing the possibility of taking our production facilities overseas where they live.

It is a compelling argument. I understand it on its face. But let me explain some of the problems with the current system and why Senator Grassley and I believe the system needs to be changed.

Supporters claim the goal of the H-1B program is to help the American economy by allowing U.S. companies to hire needed foreign workers. The reality is that H-1B visas are being used to facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. It seems counterintuitive that a visa that allows people to come into the United States could lead to jobs being outsourced overseas, but when you hear my illustrations, you will understand the conclusion.

A recent expose in the International Herald Tribune disclosed that 8 of the top 10 H-1B visa applicants last year were outsourcing firms with major operations in one country--India. So in many cases it wasn't the American high tech company using the H-1B visa that was given this opportunity but, rather, a firm, more likely in India than any other country, that was given the authority to use H-1B visas to send workers into the United States. The Herald Tribune concluded:

As Indian outsourcing companies have become the leading consumers of the [H-1B] visa, they have used to it further their primary mission, which is to gain the expertise necessary to take on critical tasks performed by companies in the United States and perform them in India at a fraction of the cost.

According to this report, the Indian Government has been lobbying hard for the United States Government to increase the number of H-1B visas. Kamal Nath, the Indian Commerce Minister, was very blunt when he said recently that the H-1B visa ``has become the outsourcing visa.'' He concluded:

If at one point you had X amount of outsourcing and now you have a much higher quantum of outsourcing, you need that many more visas.

That is a very candid statement by this commerce minister in India. It should give us pause as we think about this program, what it was designed to do and what it is actually doing.

In other words, the Indian Government wants more H-1B visas so Indian companies can outsource more American jobs to India.

Let me be clear. India is a valuable American partner in commerce, diplomacy, and many other endeavors. Indians who have come to the United States have made immeasurable contributions to the benefit of our country in so many ways. I trust them as great friends. But some in India today understand that we have a weakness in our visa system and are using it for their own economic advantage.

It is not surprising the Indian Government is advocating on behalf of Indian companies. The American Government should advocate on behalf of American companies. I don't criticize the Indian Government for doing that. But we should expect the same from our Government for our workers. We need to stand up to make sure American workers don't lose their jobs to outsourcing because of H-1B visas.

H-1B supporters claim we need more H-1B visas to stop American jobs from being outsourced. That was the logic behind H-1B visas. It appears the opposite is true. Under the current system, more H-1B visas will mean more outsourcing.

Let me give an example. Indian outsourcing company Wipro was No. 2 on the list of top applicants for H-1B visas in the year 2006. Wipro has more than 4,000 employees in the United States, and approximately 2,500 of them are here on H-1B visas. It is pretty clear that when it comes to Wipro's American operation, the majority of the workers are here on H-1B visas. Every year Wipro brings 1,000 new temporary workers here from India, while they send another 1,000 U.S. trained workers back to India. This is essentially an outsourcing factory.

Here is what the Herald Tribune concluded:

Rather than building a thriving community of experts and innovators in the United States, the Indian firms seek to funnel work--and expertise--away from the country.

It is hard to believe, but it is perfectly legal to use the H-1B visa program for outsourcing. A foreign outsourcing company with a U.S. office can use H-1B visas to import workers from their home country, train the workers in the United States, and then outsource them back to their home country to populate businesses competing with the United States. They are not required to make any efforts to recruit American workers for these jobs. In fact, they can explicitly discriminate against American workers who apply for the same jobs by recruiting and hiring only workers from their home country.

Here is what the Labor Department says about the current law:

H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of a foreign worker.

Is that what we had in mind with H-1B visas? That certainly wasn't the way it was explained to me. In fact, under current law, only employers who employ H-1B visa holders as a large percentage of their U.S. workforce are required to attempt to recruit American workers before bringing in foreign workers.

Senator Grassley and I have taken a look at this system. We both reject the notion that what is wrong with the H-1B program is that we need more visas. We have to look at the system that generates these visas and the way they are used. The legislation we have introduced would overhaul the H-1B program, protecting American workers first, and stopping H-1Bs from being exploited as outsourcing visas.

Here are the highlights. First and foremost, we would require all employers who want to hire an H-1B worker to attempt to hire an American worker first. Employers would also be prohibited from using H-1B visas to displace American workers. You can't fire an American and turn around and appeal to our Government for an H-1B visa to bring someone in from overseas to replace that worker.

This is an important principle. We have to make it clear that companies doing business in the United States have to give first priority to American workers.

Our bill would require that before an employer may hire an H-1B worker, the employer must first advertise the job opening to American workers for 30 days on the Department of Labor Web site.

Some companies that abuse the H-1B visa program are so brazen, they say ``no Americans need apply'' in their job advertisements. Hundreds of such ads have been posted on line. They say things such as ``H-1B visa holders only'' or ``we require candidates for H-1B from India.''

Is that what we have in mind, to create this perverse discrimination against American workers? That isn't the way it was explained to me. Our H-1B reform bill would prohibit this blatant discriminatory practice.

There is another serious problem with the H-1B visa program. Federal oversight is virtually nonexistent. Under current law there are many roadblocks to effective Government enforcement. For example, the Department of Labor does not have the authority to open an investigation of an employer suspected of abusing the H-1B program unless the Department receives a formal complaint, even if the employer's application is clearly fraudulent. Even if there is a complaint, the Labor Secretary--and this is something that is almost unique in our law--must personally authorize the opening of an investigation.

These restrictions in the law are aggravated by lax Government enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector General, Homeland Security has violated the law by approving thousands of H-1B applications in excess of the annual cap of 65,000. The Government Accountability Office found that the Labor Department approves over 99.5 percent of H-1B petitions it receives, including those that on their face clearly violate the law.

There is virtually no Government oversight of potential abuse in this system. The Labor Department's inspector general has concluded that the H-1B program is ``highly susceptible to fraud.'' Remember, this program was designed to help the American economy, to help create jobs and prosperity in our country. Our Government is not even watching it closely to make sure that fraud isn't being perpetrated.

The bill Senator Grassley and I are proposing would give the Government more authority to conduct employer investigations and streamline the investigative process. Currently, the Labor Department is only authorized to review applications for ``completeness and obvious inaccuracies.'' Our bill would give the Labor Department more authority to review employers' H-1B applications for ``clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact.''

Our bill would authorize the Labor Department to conduct random audits of any company that uses the H-1B program and require the Department of Labor to conduct annual audits of companies that employ large numbers of H-1B workers. We would also increase the penalties for companies that violate H-1B visa rules and authorize the hiring of 200 additional Government investigators to oversee and enforce the H-1B program.

Last month, the government began accepting H-1B visa petitions for Fiscal Year 2008. In the first 24 hours, the government received 150,000 petitions for 65,000 slots, supposedly for the whole year. Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that the top petitioners for visas were companies from India. They understand the system. They understand how to make this profitable. But this is not the way it has been described to most Members of Congress. It certainly isn't consistent with our intent.

There is another program I wish to mention, the L-1 visa. The L-1 visa allows companies to transfer certain employees from foreign facilities to the United States for up to 7 years.

Experts have concluded that some employers use the L-1 program to evade restrictions on the H-1B program, because the L-1 program doesn't have an annual cap and doesn't include even minimal protections for American workers. As a result, efforts to reform the H-1B program are unlikely to succeed if the L-1 program is not overhauled at the same time.

The bill Senator Grassley and I have prepared would reform the L-1 program.

We would establish for the first time whistleblower protections for those who call attention to employer abuses of L-1 programs, and for the first time we would authorize the Government to investigate and audit L-1 employers suspected of violating the law.

Before we are persuaded to increase the number of H-1B visas, we have to reform the program to protect American workers first and to stop H-1Bs from being used as outsourcing visas that send jobs and business away from America. That is what our bill would do, and that is what Senator Grassley and I will be pushing for as the Senate considers comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

I know this immigration debate is contentious, controversial, and some think it is politically dangerous, but it is long overdue. The current immigration system in America has failed us.

We now have upwards of 800,000 undocumented immigrants who come across the borders each year. That has to change. We have to reach a point where we have control of our borders. Some of the measures that have been suggested during the course of the debate I think are extreme. We don't have to move in that direction.

I recently met with Senators from Mexico who were visiting the Capital last week and encouraged them to join with us in a joint effort between the United States and Mexico to police the border, to try to make sure there is less exploitation of people who are coming across for jobs or for moving drugs or contraband--whatever the reason may be. I think more cooperation would go a long way between our two countries.

We also need to be sensitive and cognizant of the burden facing many employers in this country. If someone presents themselves, in downstate Illinois in a meat-packing plant, with a name and a Social Security number and a local address, what is the responsibility of the employer today? It certainly isn't to launch a full-scale investigation. If the papers presented to that employer appear to be legal on their face, most employers will hire the person. They may learn later on that the documents were fraudulent.

How can we change that system? I think we need to move toward some form of identification that is reliable so the person carrying the card who is here in a legal and temporary employment status can prove their identity to the employer, so that the system is able to police itself more.

We also need to deal with the reality of 12 million undocumented people currently here. I know all about these folks because almost 90 percent of our casework in our Senate office deals with immigration. I have met many of them and their families. We need to find a fair way to hold them accountable, to make certain that over a period of time they can earn their way into legal status. They have to have a job and no criminal record; they have to pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English, whatever it takes, to make sure that over a period of time, it is clear they have every intention to be a citizen of this country, and a good one. In that way, they can earn their way, over many years, into a position of citizenship or permanent legal status.

This country is great because of the immigrants who came here. My mother was one of them. I am very proud of that fact and happy to serve in a State
that would elect me and in a State that has so many immigrants who can tell the same story I have to tell.

I think the immigrant spirit is something that has made America a unique country. I think of people who, in their foreign lands, get up one day and say: We are not going to take it anymore. We are coming to America. We have a better chance. That is the kind of get-up-and-go we like to see that has made this a much better country.

I think we can capture that spirit in real, comprehensive immigration reform and avoid abuses such as those I have just described with the H-1B program and at the end of the day have a program and a law supported by both political parties that will really move us forward as a Nation.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source