the senate judiciary committee began consideration of more than 300 amendments to the gang of eight immigration bill. committee members varied widely on whether conference of immigration legislation is the way forward or if the bill should be broken into smaller

parts. up next, committee members opening statements. >> we can begin consideration of the immigration bill by voting on amendments this morning. i recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. i had intended to colin senator schumer to offer the first amendment the bill circulated last week to perfect the underlying bill. he has spoken dozens of times about this on the floor and tv and everything else. senator grassley tells me that some still want to speak so we will get everybody up to -- i would hope that if people don't feel that have to repeat over and over again what they have already said a dozen times we can get to work and markup

the bill. hundreds of amendments have been filed and posted to the committee web site carried i hope we will consider which of their filed amendments they intend to offer so we will keep on going as many days as necessary and consider the sponsor's amendments and start with amendments filed in the beginning sections of the bill and move on to amendments today so we do not have to come back in here tomorrow or later. i see i have have used only two of my four minutes and i would now deal to senator grassley. >> during this committee's markup on the immigration reform bill, i am going to invoke the themes that the president outlined that day that he pledge to the american people that transparency and the rule of law

will be touchstones of his presidency. i plan to ask many questions throughout this process. i want to help the american people understand what is in this 867 page bill. i want to discuss the details and understand the thinking of the author with regard to any provisions. i want to know how the bill doesn't repeat mistakes that we have made in the past. i want to know how it will benefit generations for years to come and i want to know how the bill reserves the rule of law. since we only do comprehensive immigration reform about once every 25 years or at least successfully so, we have to get it right. as the authors of 744 hoped the bill must ensure that the reform is successful so that we don't have to revisit this issue again. the bill before us has some of the same concepts of the 1986

immigration reform and control act. title ii of that act provides a legalization program. instead of calling it a registered provisional immigrant status, the 1986 bill allows the undocumented population to come forward and register with the government for what was termed temporary resident status. a person had to prove they were -- and united states prior to january 1, 1982 and he had to remain physically present in the united states until they adjust to permanent resident status. like the bill before us, 1986 law required individuals to learn english but allow people to meet that requirement simply by taking a class. like the bill before us temporary status were authorized to travel and work. any information one's application with the considered confidential and could not

render the person removable. applicants have to pay a fee and there were no numerical limits. there were weak documentation requirements that allowed for sworn affidavits. there were waivers on the ground of an admissibility. there was a provision that required the attorney general to give people here illegally with an opportunity to apply for legal status if apprehended during the application period. nor could people be deported during this time. to top it all off like the bill before us, the government was to undertake a campaign to disseminate information about the legalization program. now this ought to sound very familiar. the sponsors of the bill want americans to believe that people will wait 10 or 13 years until citizenship is granted. they say it will be tough and expensive. it would be easier to just go home than to go through the process.

i disagree with that sales pitch. unfortunately this bill looks too much like the 1986 bill which fail to take care of the problem we are now trying to solve. it falls short of what i want to see in a strong immigration reform bill so you will hear me say many times that we shouldn't make the same mistake that they made in 1986. you will hear me say many times that we want to move ahead with a bill that does it right this time as the authors of the bill said in the preamble. i will have several amendments that will improve the bill. for instance i have an amendment to hold the administration accountable for how they will spend the $7.5 billion. i'm going to take as much time as i can. the other people were going to be limited to four minutes. >> i limited myself to two minutes.

>> i have an amendment to hold the administration accountable for how they spend $7.5 million in taxpayers on and i'm mm to improve the new grant programs created by the legislation and another amendment to limit who can take advantage of the generous legalization program and eliminating the ability for some to apply while moving through proceedings. i will offer an amendment that provisions that weaken current law because i don't think we can in current law and i will offer amendments to strengthen existing visa programs. what is hard for me to swallow is the provision on page 10. the triggers in the bill the kickoff legalization are weak. no one can dispute that this bill is legalization first and enforcement later. i will have an amendment to require the secretary to certify to congress that the secretary has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for six months before proceeding to the application of registered

provisional immigrant status. if we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on the administration for future administrations or even those of us in congress. there will be no push by legalization advocates to get that job done. we need to work together to secure the border first. people don't trust the law. that's why it's important that congress legislate and not delegate. there are hundreds of provisions that grant waivers and discretionary authority to the secretary of homeland security. we are learning every day that whoever administers that bill pushes the envelope and overstepped authority to the maximum extent possible. it's been three years since that bill has passed to the executive branch has developed markets but

we can't let the same thing happen with this bill. on my last page i will make this statement, that this bill is complex. anyone of us can read 900 pages but it's another thing to understand at all and all the consequences of such an undertaking. this bill intersects with the intersection of several other congressional committees. i had a list of the provisions here that we amend 52 other laws including the national environmental policy act, the foreign services act, the united states housing act, the military selective service act, the fair labor standards act, the science foundation act just to name a few and so mr. chairman i can see that by our getting into the jurisdiction of these other committees that this judiciary committee is obviously going to be the most powerful committee in the united states senate. i yield the floor.

>> thank you. senator feinstein did you want to say anything? >> i will pass thank you. >> senator schumer. >> senator -- senator hatch. he spends a a great deal of time on this legislation and we believe it is sound, balanced, a sturdy ship that will now begin its voyage. we believe we have taken all the considerations into account and we have come up with a fair bill

where no one gets everything they want. but at the end of the day, it will mean dramatic improvement for the american economy, for the american people and will make our immigration policies much more in sync with what is good for jobs and america. and i would ask my colleagues here what we do is grounded on the fundamental premise that americans will support commonsense solutions to both future immigration and the 11 million who are living here in the shadows but only if, only if they are convinced that there will not be future waves of illegal immigration in this country. this bill is far and away the strongest bill that has been put together that has a chance to pass in terms of stopping future flows of illegal immigration.

just on the border alone, senator mccain and i had an amendment a few months ago, a few years ago rather that spent 600 to 800 million on the border rate that went up from 68 to 82. we spend much more than that. as much as $6.5 billion. the border will effectively be closed we believe with these expenditures in the way they will be done. we take future immigration and make sure that we deal with the industries that desperately need help. google moved 400 engineers as part of google maps to vancouver because canadian immigration policy allows the people to come there and our policy didn't and they couldn't get the workers here. at the same time in new york state, the leading cabbage grower in new york mr. yunker from ontario county did not plan

thousands of acres of cabbage this year because he couldn't get people to pick the crops. we will change our policies so that people who are needed to help our economy grow can finally come into this country and at the same time, we will note that when families are divided, the main thing to do is bring those families back together. and because we so dramatically stop the flow of illegal immigration, we can do both and we do and do it fairly. we know our present system is broken. we know the status quo is unacceptable. but, we also know that there are many who want to kill this bill. i would ask my colleagues, if you don't agree with everything, no one does. we are open to changes but don't

make an effort to kill a bill that is the best hope for immigration reform i believe that we have had in this country and frankly the best hope to help break the pipe -- partisan gridlock that has strangled the senate, the congress and the country. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to first thank the gang of eight for being willing to take this on and i respect their efforts. this markup is the start of a long process that includes not only this committee and the full senate but the house as well. the bill has hundreds of pages long and hundreds of amendments have already been circulated. the only other current senator who is chair this committee i know that you have a big task ahead of you mr. chairman. i commend the bipartisan group of senators who have developed a bill. bailey began marking it up today. no one should expect a simple solution to such a concept --

set of problems that goal should be serious effective legislation that can be broadly supported not only by congress but also by the mac and people. i cannot speculate at this early stage about the likelihood of success but i believe it is possible and i will do whatever i can to help reach a goal. a goal. mr. chairman you and i worked for years on reform legislation. that process started with a bill many saw as controversial and ended with solid legislation that passed the senate 89-9. i hope this ever will not take nearly as long but the bills outcome gives me hope that the task before us now. let me mention a few areas in which i will be paying particular attention in the weeks ahead. there are a number of areas that i don't have time to mention but the first is improving the progress -- process for allowing high-skilled individuals to enter the united states to work an important technology in other fields. as you know introduced the law that senators klobuchar rubio and koons so far has 26

bipartisan sponsors senators blake lee and blumenthal. [inaudible] it could make those unworkable for many employers. in fact unless it is changes bill could encourage companies to hire skilled foreign nationals abroad rather than in the united states. the second area involves workers in agriculture sector our economy. my friend from california senator feinstein deserves a lot of credit. she has been leading the series ever to achieve what can be described as a delicate compromise in this area. along with senators rubio and bennett as well. a third area is enforcement of this or any other area of the best legislation of the world is of little value unless it is seriously and properly implemented and seriously enforced. we have experienced a drop here,

negative experience i have to admit that experience all the same. we ignored that experience and our peril and we will shut their duty and failed the american people if we repeat the mistakes of the past. the ranking member on the finance committee is also concerned about issues in that committee's jurisdiction and that circulated amendments on those issues. they include the treatment of register provisional immigrants under the president's health care law maintaining and strengthening the ban on legal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits the collection of back-taxes and the determination of coverage for social security benefits. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues here to address these critical issues. mr. chairman happily this process can succeed and i will motivate my participation. there are serious disagreements about both principles and policies and achieving real and meaningful legislation and that will require addressing the concerns and priorities of conservatives as well as liberals and republicans as well as democrats and the house as

well as the senate and we should never leave that out of the equation. if we have that can keep it with us as we move forward i do believe that we can succeed and thank you mr. chairman. >> i think the senator from utah. he having chaired this -- i hate to interrupt your staff. the senator from utah having chaired this committee knows how difficult it is and i appreciate his cooperation. >> i appreciate your chairmanship too. >> thank you mr. chairman. the nameplates around tell the same story. we are a nation of immigrants, cruz, hirono, leahy, sessions and all the rest of us. the good news is in our background there was some parent or grandparent or even before that to have the courage to pick up and come to this great nation and look for an opportunity for a better life. in my case it was a mother who

was brought to america at the age of two. today her son serves in the night is paid senate. that is my story. it's my family's story but it's an american story. we are a nation of immigrants, immigrants who have made us who we are today. they have given us the diversity that in many sectors of the world is unthinkable that which makes us a strong, vibrant leader in the world. having said that, we know the history of immigration in this country is not always positive. we have welcomed the workers to build the transcontinental railroad and then we have excluded certain groups and said we don't want any of you in our country. if you look at the history of congress of this legislation back-and-forth there have been noble chapters and -- chapters as well. we know this today. our immigration system is is broken. the laws of we have did not serve us well. if this is our chance in this

hearing room to write the immigration bill for the 21st century for america and its future. for the last four months i've been actively involved in the bipartisan group to do that. it is the most diverse political group you can imagine. we have come together, we have reached agreement and we have compromise and i think we have come up with the good work product. we produced it and brought it forward to the public to review weeks ago. let me credit the chairman of the committee. he has said to us, we will bring this work product to the senate judiciary committee for a full hearing. when it was over there were more than 20 witnesses who were brought in for and against this measure and now we have literally hundreds of amendments to consider. this is as open and democratic a process as anyone could ask for and it's the right thing to do for an issue that is so significant for the future of this nation. we are not only tasked with

coming up with an immigration law for america in the 21st century, we are tasked as senators on both sides of the aisle to prove the democratic process still works on capitol hill. there are some here who have party decided they will vote against this measure no matter what. that is their right. but there are others who come here with a constructive view to make this a better and stronger bill. we encourage their work product and we want them to come forward. our bill is not perfect. as i've said the only perfect for a walk ever written was carried down a mountain on clay tablets by moses. all the others are subject to amendment and improvement and that is what we are about today. let me close by saying i know there are millions of people across america who are counting on us, counting on us to give them a future, to give them the safe opportunities that her parents and grandparents had and

to do it in an orderly and legal way. i'm proud we are undertaking this task and we should really focus on it as one of the most important things that comes to this congress this year. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. you have indicated and i believe we will have an opportunity to offer an amendment and discuss it in port and legislation in detail and i thank you for that. what do americans believe about immigration? we believe in it. we are nation of immigrants in our under current law provides for the yearly admission of over 1 million people, more than any nation in the world. we are proud of that is being a nation of immigrants but almost as many have entered the country in recent years it legally as legally and that has caused great concern. americans are not happy about that. people of this country are good

and decent. they understand and have compassion for those who are here, even those here illegally but they have pleaded with and demanded that their government and the lawlessness and for the creation of a lawful system, a rational system that is not too few and not too many. a rational system that serves the national interest one with clear rules that are enforced, not -- reform. wrestling with these issues is what we are about today. this bill meets that goal. it does not. i know the senator rubio yesterday issued a statement with a lot of changes that he believes are necessary. it was drafted in secret by a series of interest groups with too little concern in my opinion for the impact of the

legislation and the increases and it would have been struggling and hurting american workers and families. high unemployment and namic job growth unprecedeunprecede nted numbers of workers who have given up and dropped out of the labor force, we must be focusing more on getting jobs to lawful immigrants in our country and america. wages are not even keeping up with inflation and that has been true for quite a long time. we should be hearing from sheriffs, police and immigration officers about how we can make the illegal system work. just today mr. chairman for the record i asked for consent a letter from law enforcement officers and i.c.e. officers starting the reform and holes that are in this legislation. >> without objection. >> the process would be the enforcement first. this legislation provides immediate amnesty and weakens

enforcement requirements. they were against the requirement on the books in many areas. we are told that there would be a border fence. there is no fencing requirement of the bill. we were told there would be a biometric entry exit system as the 9/11 commission commission is called for. it has not happened yet here this bill undermines that requirement. we were told there would be strict requirements on amnesty at the amnesty is immediate and open to those with falafel misdemeanor convictions criminal records without a guarantee, there is no guarantee of future enforcement which is so important as senator grassley noted. we were told there would be the toughest security in the history but the border security provision has actually weakened current law changing 100% operational patrol to effective control of only three at the mine border set or send currently it weakens the

currently collapsed interior force. removal or denial of entry can be waived for reasons as fake as hardship, public-interest and effect. i have two seconds left. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak and i would just say we need to work hard on this legislation. the sponsors of set forth a vision that is attractive but the legislation doesn't keep that vision. >> a number of the senators on this committee and others in both parties have met with me about their concerns and of course i'm always open to be be with anybody in effect i'm staying here this weekend to work on this bill. senator klobuchar. >> thank you mr. chairman. i look around this hearing went today and i see so many people from so many countries and i think about how this has made our country great. following senator durbin's line i think of my own relatives and

my dads family coming from slovenia working in the mines in northern minnesota and my mothers family starting a cheese factory in wisconsin. these are our relatives and everyone in this hearing today has their own story and we must continue that american greatness by getting this bill done. this is also a test of bipartisanship in this congress a group that has courageously come together to work on this bill and a number of us on the committee including senator hatch and myself have worked together on a number of very important pieces of this bill and amendments. we are a country of immigrants. 90 of our fortune 500 companies were formed by immigrants. 200 of our fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or the kids of immigrants. 30% of u.s. nobel laureates were immigrants. think of those numbers and think of our future as we make sure we keep the door open. that is what this bill does. it has the much-needed security

measures. it establishes a pathway to earn citizenship. it contains the d.r.e.a.m. act. it has provisions that senator hatch and i worked on to make sure that we allow our engineers and scientists. think about her situation right now. we have unlimited visas for sports players. in minnesota we love hockey as senator franken knows and we are proud that we have hockey players from all over the world. we should be do the same with their engineers and scientists. we don't have enough doctors in the country right now. we want to educate more doctors but we have rural areas that are underserved by doctors. there's an important provision in this bill that i put together with senators that allow doctors to finish their residencies in this country and not have to go back to their home country to finish their residency. this is an exciting film a great opportunity for our country to move forward. i want to thank the chairman for working on this and i also want to know we have the earring in

our joint economic committee this week. we had great attendance at the hearing in the focus of the hearing was on the economic consequences of this bill. we heard from a diverse group of witnesses including grover norquist who came to testify for the bill and he talked about how it actually brings the debt down in the long term because of the economic opportunities that it creates for this country. we heard testimony in this committee from former republican of the congressional budget office geek and who talked about immigration reform would decrease the debt by $2.7 trillion over the next decade. these are republicans, conservatives, economists and people who have studied this issue for a long time. america has always been the land of opportunity and coming from the state that brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the post-it note i can tell you

i want the next pacemaker and posted not to be made in this country by our workers and that includes native-born workers and people who have had the courage to come here from other countries to get an education and decide to contribute to the productivity of america. that is what this bill is about. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much senator klobuchar. >> we obviously bring our own unique experiences to this discussion but my congratulations to the gang of eight for their constructive work. now it's time for the other 92 members of the united states in a two-way end and i hope we will have a process that allows all of us to contribute. it is i think notable that we have 43 new senators in the senate since the last time we took up comprehensive immigration bill in 2007 so there are a lot of people who know a lot about this topic and a lot of people who are engaging in the subject perhaps anew.

people come to america for many different reasons. of course as we are sometimes painfully reminded not everyone comes with good intentions but the vast majority of immigrants both legal and illegal come because they want to make a better life for themselves and their families. america is a welcoming nation that awards hard work and an entrepreneurial spirit. the work ethic is alive and well in texas where he continued to grow the economy and add jobs. in texas we welcome hard-working people who are willing to take the risk to start a business and people who start with nothing and lift themselves up and help their families live a better life. our conversation about americans immigration system is that core about people and we must never forget that. mexican-american landowners and ranchers in the rio grande valley beneath him call the border region their home for generations. it's about the vietnamese restaurant owner in houston whose daughter works as a hostess when she is home from

college on break. it's about the salvadorans working in the kitchen who hope to save up enough money to open their own restaurant someday. it's about a gifted young technologist from china who wants to be the next michael dell or andy growth. it's about dreams and success stories but it's also about heartache and tragedy. it's about the family to illegal immigrants terrorized by violent street gangs to refuse to call the police out of fear their encounters with law enforcement could lead to deportation. it's about the young woman from nicaragua who pays it high of the thousands of dollars to illegally cross the u.s.-mexico border only to be exploited as a victim of modern-day slavery. these are uncomfortable and emotional issues but we cannot ignore them. this is a debate that cannot be judged by emotion alone though. this debate is about her most deeply held values. one of those is respect for the rule of law. for too long our immigration

laws have gone unenforced and violated with impunity. our effort to fix a broken immigration system must begin at the border for we must have objective realistic goals and then meet those goals. as we all know we can solve the problem just at the border alone. 40% of our illegal immigration as a is the result of people who enter the country legally but never leave when their visa expires. we have passed a law in 1996 mandating an entry and exit system which has never ever been implemented. we must provide employees with a straight system that determines the illegal status of new hires and look carefully at every provision of the bill and to speak up and disagree and offer suggestions to improve. so i anticipate a spirited civil discussion about the bill but my constituents at their core are

pragmatists. that is because we live with this issue every day of our lives because we are 1200-mile border with mexico and the fact that about one third of my constituent and senator cruz's constituents are hispanic who have been benefits of our immigration system and who have added immeasuraimmeasura bly to our state. this legislation makes a number of positive improvements but there are areas that need to be improved even more. so i look forward to a robust discussion and i trust mr. chairman given the size and scope of this bill that you will continue the committee's tradition of an open and robust debate. thank you. >> i appreciate that and we will, one of the things we did for the first time with the bill a bill of this significance in the senate, every single amendment posted on line in them -- advance of the markup

and i might add a personal note. i know what the senator means about his own state. he knows my family lived for a while in el paso and i saw a lot of that order at that time. i walked across it several times with him and saw the lines and the diversity of everything from vehicles to people. i visited the border with a family member several times in texas. senator whitehouse? >> thank you mr. chairman. i just wanted to congratulate you on the process that we have gone through and the process of the hearing markup is very fair and there's a really good balance between those who are eager to get to work on this bill and those who want to make sure that all of the procedural rights are protected. i think you have done a very

good job of that. clearly we are not going to satisfy everyone. there is no amount of procedure that will satisfy them because that is not the purpose but i think you have done a very good job and i'm delighted to move forward and have nothing to add other than i look forward to getting to work on the amendments. >> thank you very much and i am eager to get to those amendments too. i will let everybody speak for up to four minutes. senator lee. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. we all agree that immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed. i am encouraged that both houses of congress are willing to consider this, this year. i believe we have an opportunity to make progress where there is broad consensus on a number of long-overdue reforms but overhauling our entire immigration system isn't going to be simple and won't happen overnight. we don't face just one big immigration problem. our immigration system is a complex puzzle with dozens of

interconnected parts. some reforms must be completed before others before we begin. in deeds certain preliminary measures are necessary for requisites for other subsequent reforms. for example we simply won't understand how best to address the problem of our shifting illegal immigration population until her borders are secure and we know who has overstayeoverstayed their visa. that is why it is somewhat futile to make decisions about later stages before the essential foundations are even in place. trying to solve every problem ought once is the surest way to avoid fixing any of them very well. good policy does not flow from bills that seek to resolve every conceivable issue and a single sweeping piece of legislation. we are in the immigration mess we face today because of single conference of the 11986 that didn't come close to fixing our problems 26 years ago. despite good intentions in many ways that will may have made things worse and the american

people deserve better. serious efforts have lasting immigration reformer have to be considered an month lamented in stages over the course of years. that is why favor sensible incremental approach. republicans and democrats share much common ground on the most immediate issues. we are large in agreement on potential elements that were security unemployment verification visa reform guestworker programs in high-skilled immigration and we could enact significant reforms in each of these critical areas immediately. such concrete incremental progress shouldn't be sacrificed trying to address every challenge at once or seek to resolve the most intractable problems first. we ought not hijack meaningful progress in commonsense preliminary measures by linking them to subsequent or contentious ones. i appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to work hard to develop a comprehensive proposal as we begin the market today but i believe achieving the goals and identifying legislation must come through a series of

incremental reforms that first ensure the foundational pieces like border security and ineffective entry exit system are implemented properly. the long-standing disconnect a train immigration policy and enforcement has created deep distrust of the federal government will or even can keep its promise. for decades congress and legislative border and legal immigration enforcement policies fail to implement them. many conservatives like me are eager to enact fundamental immigration reform so long as those reforms began with a secure border and a renewed commitment to enforce immigration laws. but this bill doesn't do quite enough to establish that foundation. they give is raw discretion to the homeland, the department of homeland security to make unreviewable determinations about easily manipulated security goals. according to one colleague there are 400 different waivers exceptions that the has used to

relax enforcement without any input from congress. as written the bills for security triggers may be illusory if the legislation provides for legalization of a path to citizenship prior to any actual demonstrable success in securing the border. this is precisely why such comprehensive immigration reform is so controversial. it rejects step is to performs and refuses to allow the american people an opportunity to assess and approve the initial fixes before further reforms proceed. i look forward to this process in the legislation. >> thank you very much senator lee and senator franken. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have said this before. i think because this is such a complex problem, so many moving parts that we actually do need a comprehensive plan in order to address since piecemeal won't work. i'm looking forward to starting

work on this bill. i have several bipartisan amendments that i plan to offer to help minnesota small businesses, help children and families. let's start this process. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to begin by thanking the members who have worked i think very hard on a complex issue and have put a great deal of time and energy into addressing it and i appreciate that effort. i appreciate the leader having this process to address appropriate immigration. everybody agrees the immigration process we have now spoken. i very much hope what we have embarked on will prove to be a real markup and it will be i hope a they process to improve this bill. the majority has the votes on

this committee. to vote down every minority amended or every minority amendment if it so chooses. i hope the majority does not take that approach. we have seen that approach and prior instances and that is not an approach that in my view leads to passing a bill. let me be clear. i want common sense immigration reform to pass. i think the american people want it to pass but they wanted to pass in a way that fixes the problem. and i'm hopeful that the majority on this committee will work, as i trust it will, with good ways to improve this bill went to consider amendments that would make real changes to the system. i have introduced three types of amendments that in my view are

important for improving this bill. the first and we are considering several amendments address border security and might view the bill has grave problems when it comes to border security. as currently drafted, the ill is essentially a plan to plan for the department of homeland security. it contains toothless metrics which in my judgment would render it a virtual certainty that if this bill were passed a few years hence we would be having yet more hearings discussing why the border is still not secure and that problem at the illegal immigration remains. i have introduced amendments and others have introduced amendments to put real teeth in the border security elements. i hope the committee will give those amendments serious consideration. secondly i have introduced a pair of amendments to improve legal immigration.

in my view the best elements of the gang of eight bill are the elements dealing with legal immigration i think we should improve and streamline legal immigration. i've introduced one amendment to double the -- -- from 675,000, to 1.3 million to take the h-1b visa's that are coming in and to decrease them 500% from 65,000 to 325,000. i think we need to remain a nation that welcomes and embraces legal immigrants and both my amendments go further to including legal immigration. finally avid introduced amendments to remove the pathway to citizenship for those that are here in italy and make them an eligible for means tested government. in my view of those provisions

are insisted and the majority has the votes to insist on that provision it is likely to scuttle this bill and cause it to be voted down in the house of representatives. i hope the stakeholders will want this bill to be passed. we will be interested in amendments to craft a bill that will pass and i look forward to working with the committee members in the process. >> thank you and every member will have a chance. senator coons. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a truly historic opportunity in the nation is watching to see if we as a committee and is a senate can deal in a full and open and robust debate with one of our most important and most challenging issues. as many centers has said someone -- something that is defined as as being a nation. i look forward to an open and public and transparent debate and i'm thankful to the chairman

for taking us into the beginning of the the markup where there will be hundreds of amendments considered and either adopted or disposed of. to the point just made it look forward to voting for several of the minority amendments today. this is exactly the sort of fair and open process which the people in the united states expected this. this bill in my view addresses some of the most critical shortcomings of our badly broken immigration system and i'm deeply thank to the eight senators a the bipartisan working group that is labored so hard to make such significant progress in this legislation. in my own short time the fed i've been privileged to meet with people up and down the state of delaware and all over the country who have been affected in profound ways by what is wrong about our current immigration system and we have an opportunity here to make tremendous progress. as many have recognize where we

are today is totally unacceptable. we have too many people living in the shadows. we have too many families broken by her current immigration system. there are too many young people raised in this country who cannot participate fully. too many of our best and brightest minds trained at our universities with their higher education funded by taxpayers forced home to other countries to compete against us with their best ideas and far too often our immigration system and how it is in force bears no resemblance to the most fundamental values of our country. now is the time. i look over to getting to work and finding ways together to strengthestrengthe n this bill and i'm confident that when we are finished this legislation will make our country stronger, will boost our economy, will show the nation that we can work together and we will both end illegal immigration in the united states and deal humanely, fairly and responsibly with the

terrible impact on families and communities of our current immigration system. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator flake. >> thank you madam chair and let me just say this. this is how the senate should work. legislation has been crafted with a long arduous process that is here and they came here with sufficient time for people to read and to offer amendments. more than 300 amendments were filed and it might view the vast majority of them are to make the bill better. a lot of this legislation already bears the work of many in this room who were part of the gang of eight. senator hatch sending the provisions and senator feinstein who worked on the provision for a long time. senator klobuchar and others have worked and we have met and talked with others around this table in the senate to make sure that the legislation that was

introduced baird the mark of many around the senate. it will be improved in this process and as many have said, maybe if we can do this then it will help in other areas as well. we can all work together but i just want to say that i'm pleased to be part of this process and it goes through the regular order as it's doing now. i'm convinced we will have a better product and at the end of this markup that we started with, and i think all of you for participating. >> thank you senator. senator blumenthal. >> thank you madam chair. senator coons is right. the nation is watching but really the world is watching what we do here today. the world is watching because we are the greatest nation in the history of the world and our system of immigration is broken and unworthy of the greatest

nation in the history of the world. i want to thank the senators, the eight senators who have given us this draft. senator schumer and senator durbin and the others who have participated with great courage that i hope our committee will match. the courage that they have demonstrated is the same courage that immigrants do every day when they come to this country like my dad did when he was 17 years old. 17 years old coming to a country with nothing more than the shirt on his back knowing no one and speaking no english. everyone of us has a story like that one. every single member of this committee and everyone in this room has that story that they can recount. we are a nation of immigrants and our diversity makes us strong. when i am down or just emerged about america i go to the immigration ceremonies that are

held on fridays in our state in a federal courtroom. anybody who has not done it recently asked to do it and i hope you capture that spirit in these proceedings. they are a combination of wedding ceremonies, graduation, family birthdays. people come with tears in their eyes. their neighbors and friends along with them because this is one of the great moments in their lives. what i tell them is, thank you for becoming americans. thank you for wanting to become an american and taking a test that most americans could not pass. i hope we can match their courage in these proceedings. people wanting to become an american because they want to add strength and value to the greatest nation on earth and they do. let me just close by saying that we have a historic opportunity but also a fragile opportunity.

if not now, when? probably not for generations will we reform this broken immigration system and the provisions that we have been given in this draft are interlocking and independent and supported. they are a construct that has attracted rare consensus and i hope that we can build on that. just to close, to address the concern that senator cruz has raised, what we do here is to be completely bipartisan and in fact nonpartisan because there is nothing republican or democrat about an immigrant coming to this country seeking freedom, opportunity and the tremendous future of the country

holds. thank you. >> thank you very very much. >> my mic doesn't seem to be working. thank you mr. chairman for your leadership in the join mike colleagues in thanking them for the tremendous work they put in this bill and to all the others who have worked on this and continue to work on this measure. yes we are a nation of immigrants and we all have stories to tell. senator durbin, senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal we all have stories to tell. my story is of a very courageous mother who brought me and my two brothers to this country. i am an immigrant. she did this in race three of us by herself because of her belief that we could have better lives in this country called america. as we go forward always remembering that immigrants are human being.

the success in this countries for success in this country and their families. so i look forward to going forward, coming up with common sense, humane immigration reform so that for example i know we are joined by filipino world war ii veterans who are still waiting decades later to be rejoined by their children. that is the kind of reform we are looking for and i look forward to moving with you. aloha. >> thank you very much. senator graham was not here earlier. you have up to four minutes senator graham. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you personally for all the help you have given and senator grassley and my colleagues on our side. this is the day that we have all been waiting for. we will have a spirited debate and i think there'll be a lot of good ideas offered and hopefully we can make the bill better about immigration.

i'm told my grandfather on my dad's dad's side came from scotland as part is the -- and i'm trying to keep the family tradition alive by being in politics i guess. the bottom line is we all come from somewhere unless you are a native american but having said that, that doesn't mean everybody can come when they want to. we have got disorder and we want want order. we have got chaos and a couple of things about immigration reform. senator sessions and i agree on something fundamentally. no guest worker should get a job by an american worker. we need labor, we need high-tech and low-skilled labor because we are declining population but this bill protects the american worker from being displaced. why do we have 11 million illegal immigrants coming to america? well most of them are not

canadian for a reason. we are not being overrun by canadians because that is the stable economy. they go to myrtle beach and go swimming and go home. the people that come here come from poor and corrupt countries. i understand why they come but we can't just continue this practice. they come to work. i think substantively this bill on the e-verify side will do more to control illegal employment, hiring of illegal immigrants than any idea i've seen in a long time. the fence, the combination of order security will make it harder to come here illegally but the key is if you give you can't find a job because we finally have a way to control illegal hiring and under this bill you get a chance to find out who is illegal and who is not and if you hire an illegal immigrant in the future you will be fined heavily and you may go to jail. as to the guestworker program, think it allows businesses access to legal labor paying a fair wage.

three things have to happen in my political lifetime and i don't plan on living to be 100 like strom did. we have got to reform energy and our energy resources in environmentally sensitive ways and quite frankly expand the energy footprint in america to grow our economy. we have to reform entitlement and reform the tax code. we don't have an immigration reform as part of that we are not going to grow. 10,000 baby boomers today are retiring and 18 to 49-year-old demographic is flattening out because our nation population is not growing fast enough to maintain a vibrant economy. that means legal immigration has to be available and this creates merit-based legal immigration system where we choose who comes based on the fundamental shaping of immigration. immigration doesn't need to be

reformed. it needs to be stripped down and started over and i think we have established -- the comp as that. i think this bill will prevent a third wave of illegal immigrants. in 1986 we gave amnesty that we have 11 million we have three then. being rational with 11 million, they will have a chance to come into the legal system on our terms and not theirs. they will have to wait a long time and they will have to learn our language and pay a fine. they have to go to the back of the line which is what i think they should do and at the end of the day there are good people coming out of this group and some people who won't make it but we have got to move on as a nation. i'm proud that we are back at the table trying to solve the immigration part of the problem. i'm very happy this day has arrived. >> thank you very much and i thank you for all your work on this. senator durbin reminded me that

those of us who served with senator kennedy, ted kennedy's key staffer in the last immigration bill. those of us who have had the opportunity to work with ted remember that. senator feinstein. >> just a couple mr. chairman. i think for those of us sitting at this table this is the only chance we are going to have to reform what is a very broken system and to bring a lot of people who have worked very hard in this country out of the shadows. so i think for most of this is probably just about the most important piece of legislation that will come out of the committee and i want to say thank you to those who have worked on it. i want to thank senator hatch who helped with the ag jobs part of it and senator schumer. i have one concern and i want to express it. senator kyl and i for years were

to try to get the full funding of the federal responsibility to pay counties for jail detention and prison payments. this is called this gap program. over the years the federal participation has just dropped in more and more of the responsibility has fallen onto the local government and that is just a fact. yesterday i was visited by the leadership of los angeles county who was concerned that what we do here does not transfer costs on to the states and the counties. ..

>> a state like california, and most border states, we don't want to see this happen. so we have this assurance. we have that in mind. thank you, mr. chairman, for that opportunity. >> thank you. i appreciate it greatly. >> the senate judiciary

committee begins with more than 300 amendments for the gain of any immigration bill. this hearing is two hours. >> i offer the bill on behalf of myself and this is senator durbin, senator graham, and senator blake. this is very simple. is a complete substitute and it is in line with senator grassley's request. senator grassley requested and i thought it was appropriate that i thought we had the final language after we made all the corrections available in

advance. so we made that in advance, i believe, it was a week ago on tuesday. so that when people offered this, in many bills we just do this so called managers or sponsors amendment right at the same time. that is what it does, it is technical. if fixes legal citations, technical adjustments. it makes several important clarifications, which i want to make clear. there are surcharges to pay for the cost of the legislation. it clarifies the search surcharges don't sunset and the point system to charge a $1500 surcharge. includes science engineering and math and biomedical sciences are included in this blessed and it

provides for videoconference verification under the eve verify system. all the amendments are key to the sponsors amendment. so i ask you to consent and that the amendment he accepted. >> thank you. let me explain to all the members of the committee. i have so many questions here. it would be seen just as a stall. so i'm going to ask him questions that i think are most important. first come i would like to make a statement that no one has to answer. but i want to bring up the issue that we sent several questions to secretary napolitano as a result of the hearing that we had with her. we haven't received any answers to those and i don't expect anyone here to speak for her.

the administration's position on the legislation -- senator schumer, i am trying to make the point that these really really are not technical. i want to make a point and a question about how you decided to move from $100 million of implementation in the original bill $1 billion now. it seems to me that adding this is not a technical change. >> the answer is very simple. our watchword here is to have this bill pay for itself or in other words, we do not want to incur any cost to the taxpayers,

the treasury, or anyone else. it will be the cost of administering the exit entry and the cost of strengthening the border and the cost of just administering the new immigrants will be coming here. we want to make sure that it's paid for, and obviously that is not an easy equation. we have to make sure that the amount of money needed to be consulted with cbo's and the appropriations committee and the tax committee and with other relevant departments. >> will the trust fund repay all of the $7.5 billion? >> yes.

>> it will have more money than not, but it will certainly repay the 7.5 billion. absolutely. >> i want to make a statement and let you counter it raid we are giving congress the ability to track the money and i don't think it holds the holds us accountable for money that is authorizing. >> i know you feel that way and you have offered an amendment and it is our intention to accept that amendment when you offer it. >> okay. i think a very important change here that takes a lot of explanation, we need to know on this provision and allows the state and if the parent is unfit

, it appears that technical will require states to locate those who may be in detention. so what the states on the provisions, will the states have burdens of notifying people about their intention to terminate rental rights. >> the purpose of this. when someone is deported, sometimes they are deported because of the acts they have committed could be criminal because they are a bad parent and they beat their kids. we don't want them coming rights nutcase. their parental rights should not

be extinguished, and we make that distinguish here. we did consult the states in doing this. if you have suggestions, we are open to them. >> may be senator feinstein would want to join us. i need to know why this provision -- let me talk about what the language dies. it is obviously more than technical and the new change allows people outside the united states apply for a blue card.

and is this a legalization program for people who were removed or voluntarily departed and how the defendants are treated. >> as i understand it, it is eligible for the blue card. it has been a real problem for farmers. these contract workers come in annually. >> this is not my intent.

i am not aware. >> we have put american based into this bill yet on page 268, it says that these individuals are not eligible. i would like to explain that change and could someone explain why the point system had regard with english proficiency?

>> emirates-based system, which we put together with senator graham, but everyone else, is for new immigrants. when the people want to apply for a green card, they do not go through that system. >> i would note on this that traditionally, the responses to the amendment are just to amendment the amendment and of course it is open to the amendment. including the sponsors and the it.

>> i think senator grassley has touched on some of these technical materials. while we will see over 10 years. others i have heard expressed publicly a concern -- those who are hurting at this time. can you give us a statement of the numbers and what your best judgment of the numbers will be? >> there is one point that is

being lost in the debate. we are not dealing with this in the abstract. we are comparing it to the present situation if we do nothing. so the question that is relevant to me, and i think to most americans, i will answer that in a minute. it is how does the bill comparably do nothing. our bill, as i said, we are very strong on this. i'm glad to see my calling syntax is want to do it more than we do. we are going in the right direction. he just doesn't think it's not. but we certainly do. >> we can do that without adding additional things.

>> they are going to be here. >> many people are going to get a green card. it is naïve to ignore the facts. these people are already here. many people recognize that right now. every year illegal immigrants come into the country in addition to the ones who are here. so unless the goal is to support back, isn't it better to have the people who are already here subject to labor laws so they can be exploited at the expense of u.s. workers registered with the government paying taxes and

all those other things. that is the present purpose of the bill. it includes the backlog. those people are becoming, even if we do nothing. in the future, it the reforms are legal immigration system, making it more geared towards work, immigrants, which i know is something that you support. laster 70% of immigrants were family-based, 14% of immigrants or an employment-based, it changes around significantly as we get closer to 5050 in do this by eliminating the category. although we do make room for families that are already waiting to be united more quickly. then we moved to a merit based system. it is not that this bill is allowing many more people to come and to this country, they are coming. they are either coming under law

were not under law. what we do is try to rationalize that system. but i would argue that this argument that they're going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be many in the country illegally if we don't have a bill. >> it is hard to calculate by eliminating the so-called accolade which basically is placed on the number of migration based people who can comment. those will be moved forward and some of these will be removed entirely. and having a new flow of people to come in under that. so you will see an increase in the numbers to about 4.5 million, as i have calculated. the "los angeles times" has

found under the new legal entry into the country, you have a 50% increase. which would be about 15 million on a regular basis. it could be more. that is part of a mid-level estimate. so you have 11 plus another 15, about 30 million people, it given legal status in the next 10 years. and shouldn't we be concerned about people being advanced. >> there is some simple math here. you are adding. they are already here. >> by the way, they are competing for jobs right now. i ride my bike around brooklyn

early in the morning. i see people gathered on street corners. okay? some guy in a truck comes over and says i will pay you $10 if you work all day. they are competing with americans would not accept money to work those jobs. they are competing right now. i would argue that they will with the weight weight scale much more than if they were registered in working in a legal way. but they are here. we do allow family unification. many of those people would be allowed to be unified under present law. i would say to my colleagues that you don't know what economy goes very well here and godly in mexico, the number of illegal immigrants will increase and could be far beyond what this bill is. so my main point here is this. system is broken. the american people have given

us a mandate to fix it. we fixed it in a rational way. and to simply point to who they allow to work here and who we allow to come here does not take into account would be coming here and would be allowed to work your we continue to do nothing, which i think just about everyone of each political type and how you would deal with 11 million people who were here, with people whose families are torn apart. what is your solution? i know you're critical of our bill and i respect that and it comes from the heart. the status quo will also continue to drive the numbers up. and i would argue in a way that that is less friendly to the american economy and less family to what what is the right thing to do for our families. >> you are most articulate and evil and you know i was that you greatly enact the feeling is

mutual. >> it is not going to be helpful for american workers in these 11 million are legalized. they could virtually take any job in the marketplace, they did not come here lawfully and they they're not able to do the best job. we had a huge incredible number of people dropping out of the workforce they be 15 million, but the annual flow can increase. so this adds even more to the country.

it is more like the house is doing in a step-by-step proposal >> why don't you call the roll on the amendment. >> senator schumer referred to this with order patrol agents and presumably, this is a reference to section 1102. which in fact, our reading is that it just increases customs officers and not were virtual

agents. >> we need both. the bill allows for both. we do not testify out of the 3 billion-dollar quarter used oil. we have good advice from colleagues that share southwestern borders who felt it would be better to leave it up to the expert to greatly stop the flow. in some places you may need more agents and others who don't. >> okay. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> okay. [roll call] >> i have a list of amendments

that i hope that we can adopt in black-and-white. let me take a moment to explain them. the first is border crossing fees. this includes my effort that presents a financial burden on us, senator graham talked about the canadian to come down to myrtle beach and most people know that my parents are french-canadians and came to vermont as immigrants. they learn to speak english. but we go back and forth all the time. families visiting families, relatives visiting relatives. it is a major part of our

economy. and i expect the northern order states to have a position to go back and forth, which makes no sense. but by the same token, the southern borders. it is the main thing. the first amendment is the one that the senator and i worked on. and the other one was worked on with senator grassley in reporting to the senate and house judiciary committee. the next one is senator sessions and the addition of the fbi, the next one is the oversight commission and reported scheduled for dhs and status are

towards and grant program operations and in it includes clarifying the role of the dhs amendment. five democrats, six republicans, they are now pending. >> could you give us the numbers? >> i just did. >> they're probably people that want to speak on these items. >> to yield to senator grassley. >> senator feinstein asked again

6.1.2. >> i have a question on your amendment. because as i understand it, it would prevent federal government from collecting any border crossing fees were pedestrians or passenger vehicles. of these like this needed for us to establish an effective entry exit system so we know who is entering the country and whether they actually are part of this, and the second question is does it apply to vehicles that are used elsewhere? >> my feeling is that we are spending enough on fees and taxes to protect our border.

we have talked about law enforcement. anyone who lives in a border state knows the number of communities that are connected. to tell people we are going to pay a fee. >> mr. chairman, thank you for introducing this which would pretend that the department of homeland security from proposing this just to give people an idea of the size and scope of what we are talking about through laredo texas the next is our third largest trading partner we

shouldn't discourage this important economic activity. the department of homeland security's announcements include contemplating an additional fee along the border and appropriately so. there that are ways to fund infrastructure improvements and we will be talking about some of those. but i just wanted to say that i appreciate that. also, i appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor this. thank you. >> we have worked very closely and this is as modified as it gets. >> thank you, mr. chairman. among seven and eight of the amendment, it also prohibits any

that he. can you help me understand why that is important? >> the obama administration and the budget proposed this imposition. i just don't want to open that door at all. i totally agree with the administration on this. our nation, of all nations, to do this on the northern and southern borders, where we have had such a relationship as senator cornyn just talked about. i just don't want to open a store and have them waste money

on planning for something that frankly i feel the majority of republicans and democrats would oppose. >> mr. chairman, i agree with you. i think it would reciprocate. let me just mention something i'm concerned about. i am concerned about reports of grant money for activities not related to border security. with a whole bunch of other things that they use money for. and i would like to see some accountability provisions and ensure the grant monies are used as intended and i hope we you will take that into consideration as a concerned. >> senator sessions? >> i appreciate the amendment in the house one provision that is the same. that is that the armed guardsmen will help. often they are the minds and the

immigration system can interfere in that process. it does go further in reviewing and examining regarding immigration with programs and strategies i don't have that much power to oversee the administrators, maybe even the inspector general, that is supposed to maintain the policies of the agency. finally, my friend, senator schumer is here. none of them are temporary workers and we need an estimate

for the chain migration that will occur but all of those will be employed in the country and competing for jobs. it is clearly stated that this will be you pull down and we need to be honest about it and we need to ask about what is the amount of flow that comes into the country. and slow job creation's that we can expect will continue under the new normal. we need to consider that. >> on the amendment, that has been modified by taking out this.

mr. chairman, i would just make a little explanation of my amendment number five. it requires an annual audit of the trust fund and obviously this is taxpayer money and this one appears to be a permanent fund. every fee and penalty fine goes into the fund. and yet there seems to be no significant parameters on how the secretary uses the money and no accountability to congress. the technical substitute that we have ardea brought this up to increase it from 100 million to 1 billion. and we need to make sure that the public knows how the money under the trust fund is being spent and if it raises and spends money as the bill intends. my amendment requires the two financial officers of dhs, in conjunction with the inspector general to submit an annual

audit concerning the trust fund. i think that is a good government amendment and i'm glad it's being accepted. >> before we go to the amendments, the jewish as anything else. >> with regard to the concern about items next on the amendment as to the traditional role, this particular provision, that is the whole that the taxpayer advocate already does in the current law allows for this type of review. so we do have them perform these types of functions. >> thank you.

>> can i just mention briefly the two amendments that i have, those who feel the impact first those who hold property on the border. we are talking about ranchers and property holders on the southern border area in regards to the second amendment, making sure through gao review that the information we're getting from the department of homeland security is correct and just another check to make sure that we are getting the border plan. >> it makes a great deal of sense.

>> okay. >> senator cornyn? >> i will be brief. my amendment on trafficking reporting in the bill, i think it is important we can focus on not only trade and commerce, legal immigration and illegal immigration, but also discouraging human trafficking. the amendment that is in the bill is the same bill that john carter might have in the house of representatives. this will help shine the light on human trafficking to target the perpetrators. they would update the united states code can certify that human trafficking is the most severe form of violent crime. it would increase statistics available and victims advocates

to modern-day slavery. it is in complementary of the underlying bill and provides relief to those who want to cooperate with law enforcement officers. the amendment would encourage state and local law enforcement to identify and investigate cases of trafficking. this is crucial because state and local law enforcement are often first overlooked but it needs to be important. >> those in favor of the amendment, please say yes. those opposed say no.

>> anyone who wishes to be a cosponsor to any of these amendments that we have the record will be open today so that they can add information. senator grassley, you have filed amendments. >> somewhere along the line come out like to ask you questions, but not now. >> thank you. the ranking member knows.

>> your cooperation is wonderful and i appreciate it. the massive amount of people want immigration pass because that has always had been associated with that border security i think that that has been the basis of everything that the group of eight have said about their latest edition that the border has to be secured. so the point of my amendment is there going to be massive

amounts of change in our immigration he even before the border is secure. my prepared remarks follow up on that main point. this amendment requires the secretary to certify to congress that the secretary has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for six months before processing applications for the rpi status or it requires the secretary of homeland security within six months that a bill is signed into law submit a border strategy and a southern border strategy. the secretary shall start processing applications that are presently in the united states.

it must become legal despite the potential that the plan could be flawed or inadequate. so what if the plan does not work? well, the bill is, as a result, legal insulation legalization first. enforcement later. the rpi is more than probation. it is legalization. once a person gets that, they can get the freedom to work here

they even say that it easier to go home than go through the process and i disagree. >> i voted for what turned out to be mistakes and we screwed up and shouldn't do it again. no supporter of the bill has led to this would be taken away. the triggers are meaningless and millions of people will be in legalized in the first few months after we passed it. the secretary has the authority to renew the program which i

think is obvious what happened. my amendment improves the trigger and the phils the wish of the american people. my amendment ensures that the border is secure before one person it's legal status under the act. it requires the entire board or, not just high risk areas to be controlled. it says the secretary secretary strategies is called for in the underlying bill would have to be fully implemented before green cards are distributed. if we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this admin is ration for future administrations to secure the border. we want to make sure that the order is secure.

all of the folks in the committee and the congress know that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, we are on the same vote together to make sure that the border is secure. so we need to work together to accomplish that goal. the american people, as we know, our compassionate or we wouldn't have them million people coming here under our legal program. then he can come to terms with a legalization program. but many would say that a legalization program should be tied to border security and enforcement. almost every poll shows the same results. yes, people would consider a legalization program. it's almost always tied to

condition of border security. unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe that the billable was the dhs secretary to secure the border. first it applies to the southern border and second it applies to the high sectors have been deemed effectively controlled areas it finds effective control of the ability to maintain persistent surveillance of 90% or higher. some people would think, and i'm not here to say this right now, but we should worsen existing law and that would be 100% operational control. under the security fence act of 2006, congress will dhs that the order should be 100% operationally control. this was also the metric that the senate used as a trigger when we last considered a legislation, it obviously didn't get passed until 2007 as the immigration bill.

operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the united states, including entries i terrorist and other aliens and instruments of terrorism and narcotics and other contraband. we all know that this abandoned the country and has decided not to follow the statute. this bill, before us, weakens current law. by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured in some sectors. in the high-risk sectors. my amendment doesn't deal with that 90%. that stays the way it is in the bill. according to the congressional research service, there are a variety of threats to our borders are red potential terrorists and transnational criminals, foreign nationals and threatening good sections of contraband, counterfeit products

and others meant to do americans harm. not everyone who crosses the southern border happens to be a resident of our neighbor to the south. mexico. but they just wish to find a job and earn money to send back home or at we categorize people crossing the border from mexico other than americans. but they are crossing the border every day. the last figure that i saw from 2010 show that nearly 60,000 other than mexicans cross the border that year. thousands are coming each month, not securing our border is a national security issue that cannot be ignored. so allow me to explain the amendment. under my amendment, the secretary would have to prove that we have effective control as defined in this bill. i don't change that definition. for six months before application for immigrant status

is processed. this means that the border will be secured before one person gets legal status, which in turn and titles that are sent to work authorization, travel permits, and the ability to live in the united states and make sure that everybody in the united states that wants immigration reform is in the same vote, trying to vote and push for it. realize that one and more sponsors of the bill could be concerned about border security and that the section of that is weak. one member says that the bill will have trouble passing the house and will struggle passing this amendment border security title is fixed. this person admitted that there is work to do on this issue. my amendment is a step in that direction. people don't seem to trust the government and that they will get it right with it this administration is dedicated to be secured. we don't need a new bill to do that. we need to prove it and this will prove it to them.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do. i'm not really sure it is necessary. it is my understanding that we built 651 of those miles am and that leaves 49 miles left to go. there are cameras, the there are overhead manned vehicles, and border inclusions are down. this has people differing over where to go next and to delay the triggering of the application process.

candidly, i'm amazed at the progress that is being made. i mean, just the caliph or near border alone is amazing to see how it has been toughened. and that extends along the way the beauty of what has happened is that it relies on backup and automated facilities and cameras and aerial surveillance as long as people can tunnel underground and swim rivers. but i just hate to see the bill delayed when all this progress has been made already. >> may i react? >> shirt. >> first of all, i do not question the senator from california sincerity. and i hope what she says is accurate. it seems to me to your argument

makes it all the more easy just to have the bill say this. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you. i really appreciate this and i know the ranking minority member wants to make the border more secure. believe me, coming from arizona, that is what we want as well or it will we not only suffer from people crossing the border, we suffer from having a population of people who are here now. and we don't know what status they are, we don't know where they are or they are in the shadows. and we have to bring them out. we have to know who is here. the second border, if you will, the faster we can get those out of the shadows and then start that process, which the ranking members have been very strong

on, to do that effectively you have to bring people out of the shadows and to delay that process would not be the right approach. so i know that the ranking minority members want to make the border more secure and so do we. in arizona we feel it. but i think you would be the wrong approach to delay bring people out of the shadows. thank you. >> okay, go ahead. >> mr. chairman, i acknowledged the good faith of everyone in trying to achieve the goal of knowing who is coming into the country and why they are here to and i agree with the ranking member, senator grassley. but this is really a confidence building measure, border security, and if it doesn't work as advertised, that we will have failed in our responsibility and we will not have solved the

problem. so i know that we have -- california's border is probably different than texas and arizona's is different than texas. we have the longest stretch of common border with mexico and to senator grassley's point, i was in bucks county in texas on sunday and monday in the rio grande valley coming across the border, 400 of the 700 were from central america. so mexico has not been a good partner in terms of preventing illegal immigration into mexico. the economy is doing better come up but central america's economy is a disaster. and they have a lot of on enforcement problems and people fleeing that situation we have

to pass a law that says we have an entry and exit system. gao in 2011 was then 45% of the border is under operational control we will eliminate this

concept of operational control. i think that the proposal in that respect is actually improved. certainly over what the department of homeland security has done. this includes the people that got away we hope to catch those, maybe one out of three, that is a problem because 360 people were detained at the border last year. if you figure they have one of three or one out of four, that gives an idea of the scope of the problem. so i think the only way we will be able to make the homeland

security department do a wee one, which is to secure the borders, again, i commend you for what you have done in the bill. i just want to make clear that there is no border security trigger currently in the bill. and what senator grassley's proposal would impose an effective trigger that i think would incentivize everyone to do what we all know needs to be done. which is to provide operational control of the border. >> very good, senator schumer and. >> i appreciate the comments of my colleagues from iowa and texas. our goal is to make the border secure, and we do. as i said, i just want to repeat this because i think it's worth repeating. the effective rate it is now up

to 82%. .. in the bill goes a long way to

doing it and it does have trekkers related to the exact same way they've improved the border from 68 to 82 have to be implemented, whether it be more people, more drones, marfan said ticket than 90%. the problem with the grassley amendment is this a certain games -- or changes that were substantially to fully operational. does that mean if one radars broke and imported the border that you can't begin legalizing the people here? as senator flake said, the longer they stay in the shadows were seduced for the states they read on for all of america. that's what i believe this would say. one radar broken or three out of 500. not fully operational.

let them stay another five years in the present, rotten status quo. one other point in regard to my friend senator cornyn. you may not need the full domains you have, that you talked about operational control. operational control joseph having a person in each place. what we have learned a mosquito to me that senator flake and senator mccain took me to the arizona portion it's bad. we have more people in the border patrol. 21,000, triple what it was five years ago. if you want to have the whole federal budget come you guys figure a tire going to get the money. the whole federal budget you could probably have 100% operational control. what we found is different things work in different places. intense work some places. your state is little different

because it is the river is supposed to land barrier. the rio grande. in many places, that the most effective if you have the dearest people, but the border is air. air patrols, drones. right now as i understand that, senator mccain knows this best, only two of these on the whole southern border can only work eight hours a day because they don't have the personnel. what i learned is very interesting to everybody. when they were committed outside the person a person crosses the border. they come that day come to sunny, cloudy, stormy. but they can follow than 25 or 50 miles thing. he don't have to just as someone standing at the border to catch them. they sort of know the routes that these people go.

so the idea 100% perfect this was abandoned because we found versus impossible to have that many people and pay for it without breaking the bank. in many areas the effectiveness is different in different places. some areas, those that don't have large numbers because of a river or ruggedness or whatever else, it's better to use stuff from the air with the personnel you need to apprehend. this amendment would set a standard that would basically delayed forever any legalization of bringing people out of the shadows and at the same time demands too much one-size-fits-all. it would be less effect given actually making our border safer, more secure than what we do in this bill.

one other point i would make. we also require -- the border is not the whole thing in preventing illegal immigrants from coming here. 40% of the people here illegally, because they've overstayed their visa. then across their border. they come in legally and overstayed we don't have it checked in. one of the triggers we have is the exit and entry system must be implemented and the reason people come to us for jobs. they are so desperate. if i were making a buck a day in oaxaca province and i could make $4 an hour in america, i becoming and sent $2 in the domestic mother was something. but we haven't either by mandatory system that must be implemented as a trigger, something many on this night had

demanded for but to have people across the border msb 100% peers or three readers are broken come you don't begin the path that allows people to come out, register and make responsibilities. i would urge me pose this. >> senator grassley asked for a roll call. >> could have another question. >> you mentioned the figure 68 and 82%. i'm unclear what is referred to. you mentioned 68% to 82%. >> gao report on the effectiveness rate of the border now 2012 december is the report, but it measures before we

implement the laughter. over the last eight years. >> i would love to see that route for. gao also found only 45% of the border is under operational control. i want to make clear and not suggesting you need to have a body every step of the way. we need a layered approach that uses technology, that uses tactical infrastructure, but we need to get the job done. the worst thing in this legislation is to pass and not solve the problem, which you want to thought that the bill doesn't do it. the problem is the effectiveness rate does not take into account people who cross illegally in the department is not tracking. it doesn't take the people get away which could according to an

total reports could be two out of every three, three out of every four. substantial implementation does not tie anything into metrics. as he said, 90% is a goal, but there is no trigger that implements this based on any metric amounts what we're trying to get metrics and measures in place that allow the goal we all want to achieve to be accomplished. >> at the gao report here i'll be delighted to send over to you. between operational control and effect every. they abandoned operational control because they thought it was useless measure. >> it got bad grades.

>> i think senator cornyn, i deny your experience in texas. every expert says it's gotten better. every single expert. it's a good mouse clicks no. that's why we have things in this bill. >> i grant you that. the 360,000 people are detained across the border, which could be three or four times that. i want to tell senator schumer as i said at the border on sunday and they and i know senator frank and would probably find this interesting, too. we are not just in the border penetrated by people from mexico or central america appeared some of the rescue beacons or because one county had people died last year trying to come across. the rescue beacons are in english, spanish and chinese. my chinese clicks or $30,000 you can get one of the smugglers to

get your% shall america into mexico to unite states. another showed me a picture of three gentlemen are wearing some form of turbine. where these folks from clicks they set afghanistan. the border patrol of including state sponsors have come across the southern borders. this is the national security issue as well. has a credible issue, so we've got to get this right and i hope we work together to get it right. i back >> of all the things that route, that is our metric. >> mr. chairman, this is a huge, huge part of what the whole is

about. senator grassley's and so correct the amnesty occurred in the enforcement never occurred. if you pass the legislation, that amnesty is on track. the triggers don't work and we will have that occur no matter why. then, what about the enforcement? this legislation on both accounts, weaken existing metrics. the entry exhibit of words in the reform act in an athletic commission insisted that we passed that law. this bill does not attempt to do the land borders. it does not complete entry exhibit b. for system and gao said without land borders it won't work and they are correct. with regard to the border, the

reason they cite improvements is because during the 2007 debate on the bill failed, we did put in more money than president bush and perhaps present about mr. had more border patrol agents are higher. more agents at the border. a senator cornyn said, they tell us as many as one in three gigabyte for everyone caught we got 300,000 last year. that means a million people cross the border. this is not fixed. with regard to the idea the defense is totally falls. american people need to understand this is how you get taken to the cleaners. so i offer the legislation with 600, 700 vials of doublethink in at the border and they can choose where to put it.

then i noticed the appropriations bill later that year had no money in it. so congress voted overwhelmingly to build a fan when the appropriations bill came up later there was no money in it. so they had a big fight over that bill and eventually money was put in, but it was never built on a 36 miles of legally required double fencing occurred with automobile barriers and other barriers. we have a virtual fence. spent a billion dollars because it never worked. we don't have the same e-mail that requires healing today. and i can recall vividly after president obama took off his

they identified quite a number of illegal workers there. he apologized for the action, an investigation of the people doing their jobs and notified the enforcement action et cetera not going to have this anymore and they haven't. the officers sued the administration seigneur blocking us. you're telling us we can't comply with the lap of the united states. what i want to say to my colleagues and i know you've worked hard on the legislation, that the american people have a right to be dubious. the american people have a right to demand confidence. i haven't talked much more than senator schumer has. the american people have a right

to demand we get it right this time. we could do this. i think it's possible for us to do this. i would just note with pleasure that senator rupiah yesterday said he would support an amendment and other things that would mandate specific portions of the southwest border defense with double layer fencing along with the funding to do it. so i think we've got a bill that doesn't do that and we need to do that. the bill does not require any fencing. i appreciate the work of my colleagues, but were going to try to make sure the promises are carried out this time we don't have a shell game of amnesty occurred, promises of enforcement that never occurred. >> senator turbine and senator graham back and forth. senator durbin.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a big issue with a gain came together. there were strong feelings on the republican side. two of the senators were from border states. senators mccain and slate. they were determined to do more and we do. let's not overlook what we've done in terms of border security. some of the suggestions are three to four people getting away. you can find the evidence to back that up. my friend says that it anecdotal, which means anybody can say to anybody and be repeated in this hearing. let's look at specific facts. it's the safest of 40 years. how can i say that? the president said at the state of the union address. what is my basis before this committee? in fiscal year 2012, the government spent $18 million on

immigration enforcement. that is more than we spent on all other federal law enforcement combined. fbi, secret service, dda, alcohol tobacco and firearms. the department of homeland security has deployed unprecedented levels of technology and infrastructure of the border. the number of agents has more than doubled. 10,002,004, 21,000 today. better stats than anytime in the history of the border patrol. we deployed thousands of miles of technology, including a senator feinstein and others have noted mobile surveillance systems on and on with significant results. in 2011, the latest year statistics available, 85,000 individuals evaded capture while

crossing the southern border illegally. 85,000 compared to 600,000 died years before. 600,000 to 80,000, according to pew hispanic center, for the first time in 40 years, net migration from mexico has fallen to add or below zero. more mexicans returned to mexico to come across the border in the united states. having said all disney, this bill says were going to do more. we can't go forward until a comprehensive security plan that means six months to put that together and start spending billions of dollars to implement it, adding to what i've just described. we sat together for 45 sessions going through research of the bill. what he said gets to the point. is america safer with 11 million

people in the shadows are safer if we follow through and come out of the shadows, register, tell us who they are, where they lived, where they work and submit themselves to a criminal background check? of course we are safer if they come forward. but grassley amendment to lose that. it doesn't make america as safe as it should be. i say to senator sessions and others, before we move from this rps data is to the globe permanent resident, i will concede other things must occur. packers senator sessions come to the floor repeatedly and offer amendments. he believes that. we do too and it's included in this bill. from this point forward, we want certifiable proof of identity. no longer could not you have a

social security number and pretend to be someone certifiable proof of identity through e-verify. i'll finish by going back to the point, 40% of undocumented people overstayed a visa. we find the complete system. >> senator graham had >> this is a very good debate. i understand the amendments in a very sincere fashion with commonsense component. you should be skeptical. i understand the reason to be skeptical, but eventually come up with a plan that works and addresses the problem of border security act to arizona centers are pretty satisfied with this. is this better in a fashion to get us where we want to go? we have the canadian border.

i don't know how many fences and avalon are canadian order. if we have any, i don't know about it. i don't know how many we have a lot of border. i doubt it's 21,000. why are we okay up there and not okay to the south? the tale of two borders spirit lives on a problem in the other not? canada is the place where people like to stay. they like canada. would love to have been visited. they want to go home because it's a nice place. the people across the southern border that in hellholes. they don't like that. our problem is we can't have everybody in the world coming to america. we just have to create order out of chaos. so you've got to do something the southern border you don't do in the northern border.

if you don't agree that difference is jobs, we just don't agree. 11 billion people come from countries where they can't find work and life is miserable. it seems to me if you control who gets the job, you've gone a long way of controlling illegal immigration because as long as the jobs are available in america, you can't build a fence high enough to stop people. if you make it hard to find a job so it's hard to get across the border, you've come a long way to fixing the problem and i think we do. now here's the trick or treat the comprehensive southern border strategy and a southern border strategy to congress. right now we have 352.1 miles of single thing, people driving up and down the road, double layer

fence. i agree with senator sessions. they're not going to build one more offense. they just don't have the desire to do that. we are going to substantially complete this strategy. 13 available to us. the faa won't let more than to fly. this bill says he'll poke more drones on the border and low flyover time. the goal is to have 100% awareness of what's going on along for 2200 miles. find ways to stop entry. you have convinced me there's parts of the texas mexican border you don't need a fence because when you come across this company's got a thousand foot cliff decline. he can climb not, we'll consider giving your visa.

putting a fence at the top of a thousand foot cliff doesn't make a lot of sense and in texas he got a lot of private property problems you don't have an arizona. the goal is to see the 2200 miles the first time ever. once you see it, go find out how to enter date, but the ultimate goal is to make sure you can't find a job here as easily as you want good. you control the jobs. you're going to secure the border. my belief is substantially complete is the right way to go, fully operational. were never going to get better because of a senator schumer said. here's the crux of the problem. there's a lot of skepticism about securing the border on our side, but some skepticism on the other side the order security for us is not about keeping people out, but 11 million

stock. i don't want to keep 11 million static, but i want them to be stuck as long as necessary to address the underlying problem and they can transition into lpr status until mandatory either if a system is implemented. substantially implemented in an electronic access system being utilized. that to me is the key. substantially complete the border strategy, get the drones flying. you got to his mandatory e-verify up and running. >> mr. chairman, a question mark colleague. >> senator graham, those kind words i was $7 to my relatives up there. i'll translate them first into

french. >> i had the honor to chair the mexican-american parliamentary pier we traveled to mexico. i think my colleague doesn't mean to suggest that while there is poverty in mexico, it's a really poor area, it is not a hellhole. they have some great things going on in mexico. we are proud of the people in mexico. it does have some difficult areas as i know you know. but i just want to say good people, a lot of progress made a more proud of mexico and continue to make progress. >> i'm just talking about all the places people want to leave for whatever reason. >> before we started talking the wedding travelogues here, i promise senator feinstein noted here from her.

while the roll call. >> mr. chairman, i just need 30 seconds. >> mr. chairman, i want to clarify that figures. secretary napolitano testified before the sun april 23rd geared here's what she said. as of january 15, 2013, dhs have installed 352 mazda primary pedestrian fencing, 29010 miles of vehicle sent being and 36 miles postsecondary fencing. they had identified 653 miles as appropriate for fencing and barriers underscores this is a

congressional record, congressional research service of may 3rd and it goes into all of the surveillance assets and the combination of these asset that has been done. i'm going to vote against the amendment because i don't think we want to slow this thing down. i have no doubt as to this nation's commitment to enforce this border. we have shown over the last decade. i am here long enough to celebrate the search had come to 15 years ago and how much better they are today. i am convinced under this dhs and the secretary, the border security is going to continue. i don't think we should delay application. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman, secretary of homeland security is very declared victory. he said the border is secure and we know that's not true.

to my colleague, senator durbin and senator feinstein, i would just say it's not aimed to talk about inputs, how much money we've spent, how many people were there, what technology we have in place. but it's another thing to talk about output or resold. we want the border to be secure. we don't want to say how hard we tried. it's like hiring a mover to come to your house because you have a leak in the roof any find out after you pay the after you pay the roof release a new callback and say my roof still leaks. he says i spent 10 hours trying to fix it. i put all these materials in place, but your roof still leaks. i understand that made the significant investment at the border and acknowledge that. but it still leaks and that we ought to be looking not as a

result of the output, not the input. i'm sorry senator schumer is not here, but i've noticed that this president and can take note. i look at the gao report december 2012 it primarily focuses on the tucson sector and not all nine sectors of the border. what it does this talks about the number of people border patrol actually encounter and not the people that got away. that's how they measure their effectiveness. that's hardly a good measure of operational control or effectiveness because they just talk about the people they encounter and not the three out of four are two out of three that the telomeres simply getting away. we all want the same thing. we really do. so the question is our

credibility and every going to put measures in place to make it more likely to accomplish the goal we all say we want to achieve. if we pass a bill based on extravagant promises and it fails, we've created a bigger mess than exists now. >> last word, senator grassley appeared >> i thank you for the privilege of closing remarks. first clarify with advocates for the language in the bill did they change their effective control standards in that will. they may have got that idea what i said during my opening remarks that the secretary unilaterally disregarded 100% operational control standard and that raises

the question since he ignored the 100% operational control standard. if they don't make it very clear their and situations or 10 years down the road if he was unilaterally disregarded, was to keep them from this new language for what ends up being assigned by the president of the united states. i think senator sessions made the best argument and not just referring to the mistakes he made in 1986, my whole madness to remind people of those mistakes. i was one of those that made that mistake. my bill will help correct that mistake or not repeat that

mistake with the president signs a bill in 2013. bottom line is we have to make sure with the authors of the legislation say and what the people of this country believe that we make sure we have order security first. the legislation doesn't do it. they may be seeing some progress had been katie can work out the way these people, the authors of the legislation say it is, but i think were entitled to make sure because we are so certain in 1986 and we screwed up. i yield the floor. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> and also that senator frank and in person. the amendment is not agree to. senator schumer, you have an amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you. this just refers to the funding of the border security and immigration enforcement

resources. hear what they are simply doing is making sure all the expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income the bill brings him. this is to make sure we don't -- this bill does not incur any cost on the taxpayers. we had to do that given the budget control act and the brave other things work. we worked with those committees to make sure it was done this way and i can get into detail of the above questions. basically two pots of money. one in section six provides startup costs to implement the bill repaid by a feast to back later. the second provides funding for the people, the personnel who have to process the initial people. again, repaid quickly by the funds that come in later.

so what we're basically doing is setting up two pots of money that have initial started monday and is repaid by the fees that the companies pay when they give workers and by immigrants to become in terms of their fines if they go through the process. we don't have the cbo estimate yet here they work in their mysterious ways, but are a master that will have a net income, and not plus in terms of the fees and fines will exceed the cost of this bill. >> senator grassley. >> i pointed out by the technical amendment for start up costs. as far as cost is concerned i'm going to have questions for senator schumer.

it appears you had 800 million to start up costs and new started the count. [inaudible] >> now, it does not increase the cost. simply says that the pot of money early so we can begin implementing the bill because it's over the 10 year period the feeds come in and it's forever but takes a couple years before the others through the company pay fees those monies come in. if not in crazed the cost. we set a way of getting it paid in making sure we repaid. >> is this emergency spending outside the budget process? >> has come to this emergency spending bill the way to do this and you can listen to the comments of everyone around the table. millions of people are crossing the border illegally.

we are the same business and missing companies because people who should be coming in here and can create jobs and companies are not. this is not the most emergency situations america has. >> you've got a whole basis for which he saved us money needed. but what are the cost estimates based on an as the department share figures appeared to raise the issue of raising additional money? >> i didn't hear the second one. >> has the department shared issue or or rate in estimates? >> we consulted omb, dhs and also consulted outside authority to get these numbers to be as accurate as possible. >> since i'm so interested in that you verify program, why does your amendment ballot could

750 million for that you verify program about specific costs are associated with that expansion and implementation? >> on this area with a ticket either by running as quickly as possible. this is an advance that will be repaid when the fees and everything else command. we don't wait five years hurt you verify to begin being set up. >> you understand where the voluntary program people are using and i'm not acquainted with costs associated with that. >> well, what we do to prevent the card is having a picture component. so if i were to show up and say i'm chuck grassley, they could see that i'm not two-year credit. [inaudible] [laughter]

i think i'm going to vote against this amendment. i would urge my colleagues do. >> mr. chairman, i think senator schumer, which you do have a budget violation, which would have to be funded during emergency. but i say hear what you're saying, this will eventually be paid for and you have language that guarantees the money will be used to pay for the initial cause. if you don't ha ha many people are come and, how will we know how many fees will comment? >> we will try to make estimates and i hate to use the word, conservative as possible.

>> did you feel -- >> card cover these don't strike me down. what we try to do another versus make sure if anything would've a surplus that we believe we do. >> at some point you need to have an estimate of the number of people market that before the bill is passed. we know how many people would be admitted if this bill becomes law. one more thing. >> i found this site here. this is section six c., which says if we don't meet the funding, which we believe will do, they can raise the fees and places to make sure we meet it. we will be budget natural matter what. >> can you tell us exactly what it will pay for? maintains the money will go for.

>> paper thinks many on the other side support for mandatory key verify, and accenture system as you know now we check you what you come into the country. if your 30 day visa with no way to know whether you go back out and have come back out. that costs money. then there's the administrative costs of processing other people. >> i think something like this would be a critical part of an improved enforcement plan. i'm willing to consider something i don't do often in a budget waiver, which in effect you would be talking about, but they want to verify the revenue sources are there. the general of some of the

details, but i don't fundamentally disagree with the approach you're taking. something like that will be a part of any effective legislation. >> thank you. i met the pope. >> senator grassley, do you wish to roll call? clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> before it though, i know senator durbin voted aye person. >> the amendment is passed. senator leahy, go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. update to call it the lee amendment number four. >> amendment number four. i should note. people have asked to schedule. after that one of the senator grassley amendment number one, which i believe is going to be

accepted on voice for, although this can crave to be surprised. that is a conservative estimate. on the one of senator grassley number 24 and then we will break for lunch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have not number four would accomplish two simple eggs. first it would require a simple majority vote to approve defense and border security plans and strategies before any rpi applications may be processed. second, you would require congressional approval for certification of completion before any could be adjusted to lpr status. this is a very simple man. the reason i proposed this and then it is because many of the circus or in the order security

and fencing triggers in this bill vast too much discretion in the secretary of homeland security. some have suggested there is no fancy requirement in the sense that trigger could be satisfied with anything will improvement to the currently existing fence. the only concrete requirement is the strategy must achieve an effectiveness rate of 90% in high-risk areas in high-risk sectors, but the denominator has a number the department of homeland security does not now according to secretary napolitano said in testimony before the committee. the 90% goal has to be met in only three of the nine sectors of the border. some in this sense, one could argue these are not true security requirements. as drafted, the bill may allow dhs to accomplish security and in no way requires it. it's entire plausible, so my

likely triggers of the technically satisfied without truly satisfied congress or the american people. it conjures up the advantage senator korn and conjured up of the person who hire somebody to fix this route and not to pay the whole bill, the river comes back and says they've done everything can do. the homeowner says the roof still leaks. he's been out of luck if he stayed the entire bill and doesn't have any additional discretion left. it may well be as the bill's proponents insist that the border security matcher of department of homeland security will be sufficient if my colleagues are indeed confident those triggers in this bill will eventually satisfy the can turns of congress if they're fully convinced these things will happen there shouldn't be any objection to certify troopers have been met.

this gives us the final say in whether those triggers have been met. we should be willing to go along with this. this preserves the interest is congress to make sure we have the last word. this is an amendment that is minor in nature, neither republican or democratic. it reflects the fact we as members of congress ought to have the last say. >> mr. chairman terry >> senator grassley. >> i'm a cosponsor and it brings example of something i see wrong throughout this legislation and if you go back to health care, wrong about health care reform. congress is short on legislating a moment delegating and we've got to get back to doing what the constitution requires us to do and not shove our responsibility onto the executive reach of government where it was and it tended to

be. there's 1693 delegation for people to write regulations. at the dereliction of our duty and we have to be ashamed of that figure. i counted over 200 and have it out by my colleague counted twice when i did of the delegations of authority to the secretary. are we going to shove it off on somebody else? this brings it back home, a decision we get her to make the congress not to make the final decision on whether to order a secure. i support this amendment. >> the compromises worked out both sides are reasonable one.

they have to have this difficulty to get if you want to have a resolution to the sun rises in the east to wait for congress to act on each one of these things, matters hindered administratively. obviously i would oppose it. >> i would suggest that senator graham -- if i could speak to your point, i think the author of the amendment is taking care of the fact that congress can't ever make a decision because it preempts committee action on a fast-track city voted up or down. >> senator graham. >> i understand that senator lees giving not having elected officials that answer the people to say we believe the border is secure or no we don't rather

than an unelected appointed bureaucrat. homeland secretary has to come for approval. here is my problem that this makes sense if there had been no history here. i guarantee all of our democratic friends josé the border is secure and republican house will say no it's not for a very, very long time. i originally wanted this idea in 2006 and 2007 because it put everybody on the record and i'm not convinced when it comes to border security for whatever reason, democrats are inclined to say it's not. i'm not blaming anybody, but that's the way this breaks down in terms of those. to be hard to go back to south

carolina. wow, seems to be pretty secure, substantially secure. that's not going to cut it either. but we try to do is create metrics on border security, getting a better view of the 2200 miles. the problem i had visited him at a picture of the whole border were about to acquire one. then you make a logical decision of how to secure each element of it. he verifies the fans controlling the job of the goal that we do have a provision of the bill. five years down the road gives everything a chance to be up and running. order security, either by has to be implemented before you can have a transition status. if we haven't achieved the goal

of 90% of senator grassley has a very good amendment, he wants to say where the entire 13 sectors of the border. if we haven't turned back or cut 90% of the people we see and we hope to see the entire border, we will empower border state folks to fill the gaps in congress will vote on their plan to be over $3 billion available. that is a more reasonable approach, but i could exactly what you are saying, senator lee. i'm afraid given the politics we wind up having a partisan vote every time we do this. >> mr. chairman, i think this makes sense and i appreciate the security work done on the bill. 50 dhs plan is that working, something else? is that what you mean? >> the commission as a way to get to the goal of 90%

tearjerkers are substantial completion of the border security plan, he verified, entry exit visas have to be implemented. he verifies have to be implemented before you can turn vision. the other stuff has to be substantially to the day. the commission is get to the goal we all share by empowering people to live better like our friends from texas and arizona to five years down the road we have been achieved. >> at dhs is achieving, the local people -- [inaudible] >> sounds good. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> senator durbin was now a person. >> the amendment is not agreed to. senator grassley, you have an amendment? >> i think we can do this by voice.

manman poststrike all references to high respect yours. it defines those with more than 30,000 individuals were apprehended in a fist go year. the bill only requires high risk factors be secure before green cursor allocated. the authors of the bill make the southern border would be secure before green cards and citizenship are aborted to people here illegally. this is false promise. they're not sectors on the southern border with mexico. if this bill were to pass, the secretary using front metrics they only have to certify one, two or three sec tours are secure. manman asks the question, why not all set pairs and obviously it should be all sectors. >> i have no problem with this. i understand it doesn't impact the northern border.

if nobody has anything further, i'd be lying to accept another voice spoke. >> senator graham. >> this means the commission is more likely to meet and that's a good thing. >> all those in favor signify by saying hi. i'm --. >> i want to thank senator grassley for this amendment. we've tried to make this flexible in terms of high respect resemble risk in this increases our flexibility. i thank you and it's a good addition. >> you want to take up amendment number 24 now? >> for my colleagues -- >> just keep in mind you're the only thing that stands as between lunch. but she take all the time you

want. >> and i will buy you lunch. >> i've heard that promise before. [laughter] >> mostly people in the democratic side of the committee, i'd like to point out my next amendment is being sued heard me try to accomplish on a lot of other bills that come before this committee when those programs involve grant programs coming out of the department of justice or any other department. >> at the senator would yield, he knows i supported his efforts on the traffic in the dense protection act. thank you. >> this amendment number 24 i hope demands accountability for taxpayer dollars authorized in the bill. the bill authorizes seven new grant programs but obviously hundreds of millions of dollars involved. these grant programs will push

these hundreds of millions of dollars to groups, businesses and individuals and there's nothing wrong with that because that is the purpose of grants. there's virtually no accountability in the bill as drafted. instead, there's only the possibility that were deemed the inspector general. given the annual deficits, we need to ensure resources are spent appropriately. they would have fared accountability measures by the department of homeland security, fema and national science foundation. language identical to this amendment has been coded before. the school and safety

enhancement programs voted out in march also included the trafficking victims protection act and so we've had experience with this before. the amendment requires the inspector general conduct audits of a select number of grants authorized by the programs annually that includes reasonable restrictions and exclusion in some those found to have used great dollars and appropriately. it limits the unnecessary conference expenditures, but does not limit them. it requires preapproval of any conference exceeding $20,000 in agencies awarding grants to nonprofits that hold money off shore, so i hope to not renew some commonsense approaches.

>> senator schumer. >> it's a good amendment. we want to be as accountable as we can be. the senator from ohio has made this one of the watch words of his career to precede not meant and improves the bill. >> the eyes have it -- i should note that we disclose to 17 amendments this morning. eight of them are republican amendments. we are maybe not rather rapidly. it's 12:30. i want time for senator grant to buy a very nice lunch for senator grassley. we will come back at 1:30. we stand recess. >> if we wait for him to buy our lunch, we are going to starve. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]