it's all gesture-based, and it's very easy, very fluid. might be a little learning curve for people used to the older blackberry, but believe me, it's simple and intuitive, and it's fast. >> host: john noble of blackberry, thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979 brought to you as a public service by your it's provider. television provider. >> coming up next, a house subcommittee hearing on a bill to expand a system that allows businesses to determine the immigration status of their employees. after that we'll be live from capitol hill as members of the senate judiciary committee continue their markup of the immigration bill. and later, the senate's back at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches followed by debate on the reauthorization on farm and nutrition programs and debate and votes on two judicial nominations.

>> a house judiciary subcommittee held a hearing last week on a bill to expand the current employer e-verify immigration status system nationwide. it's an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the immigration status of their employees. witnesses included a former federal immigration official in the george w. bush administration as well as a vice president of the national restaurant association. the bill is called the legal work force act. it was introduced by texas republican congressman lamar smith. south carolina republican congressman trey gowdy chaired the hearing. it ran about an hour and 45 minutes. >> the subcommittee on immigration and border control will come to order. chair is still authorized to declare recesses at any time. we welcome all of our witnesses.

i will introduce our witnesses properly here in just a moment, but for now i will recognize myself for a brief opening statement. today the subcommittee holds legislative hearings on bills that can, if implemented, substantially affect u.s. immigration policy in a positive way. the first hearing is on 1772, the legal work force act which requires all u.s. employers to use e-verify to determine the eligibility of their employees. because it's one of the largest centers for illegal immigration to the united states, we must insure employers have appropriate and workable tools. i know chairman goodlatte and past chairman smith and others have worked tirelessly, and i am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i very much appreciate your yielding me your time. this is bipartisan legislation that shuts off the jobs magnet

attracting illegal immigrants to the united states. the bill expands the e-verify system and makes it hand to have for all u.s. employers -- mandatory for all u.s. employers. seven million people are working in the united states illegally. these jobs should go to american citizens and legal workers. h.r. 1772 could open up millions of jobs for unemployed americans by requiring all employers to use e-verify. the e-verify system is quick and effective, confirming 99.7 percent of work-eligible employees. recent data shows that approximately 451,000 american employers voluntarily use e-verify and an average of 1600 new businesses sign up each week. the program is free, quick and easy to use. in fact, this subcommittee heard testimony in february from the the president of homeland security -- department ofhomelay

can now be used by smartphones. you have to show your social security number to visit the doctor, go to the bank or buy a home. it makes sense that businesses would use the same identification to insure they have a legal work force by checking the legal status of their employees. the legal work force act requires that all u.s. employers use e-verify to check the work eligibility of new hires in the u.s. the verification is phased in depending on the size of the employer's business, up to two years, for example, to provide additional time for smaller businesses and agriculture. h.r. 1772 balances immigration enforcement priorities and legitimate employer concerns. i -- it gives employers a workable situation under which they can not be held liable if they use the system in good faith. the bill presents a patchwork of state e-verify laws but retains the ability of states and localities to condition bids

licenses on the use -- business licenses on the use of e-verify. in addition, it allows states to enforce the federal e-verify requirement if the federal government fails to do so. the legal work force act increases penalties on employers who knowingly violate the requirements and imposes criminal penalties on employers and employees who engage in or facilitate identity theft. the bill creates a fully electronic employment eligibility verification system, and it allows employers to voluntarily check their current work force if done in a nondiscriminatory manner. furthermore, it gives additional tools to help prevent identity theft. for example, the bill allows individuals to lock their own social security number so that it cannot be used by imposters to verify work eligibility. the legislation also allows parents to lock the social security number of their minor child to prevent identity theft. and if a social security number

shows unusual multiple use, the administration locks the number for employment verification purposes and notifies the owner that their personal information may be compromise. studies on error rates and the cost of e-verify have been mention add prior hearings. that study utilized old data and failed to address the provisions aimed at preventing identity theft which are in the bill today. this subcommittee heard testimony earlier this year that discredited the study because it amplifies higher numbers by 25% by counting internal promotions and transfers. many of these critics failed to point out that other studies revealed that three-quarters of employers stated that the cost of using e-verify is zero. equally important, the american people support e-verify. a 2011 rasmussen poll found that 82% of likely voters, quote,

think businesses should be required to use the system to determine if a potential employee is in the country illegally, end quote. unfortunately, many states do not enforce their own e-verify laws and others apply it in only a limited way. the work force be act will help insure that employers from every state are on an equal footing. this bill is a common sense approach to deterring illegal workers that could open up millions of jobs for unemployed and underemployed americans. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank the gentleman from texas. chair would not recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. few issues have received as much attention as e-verify. in the last congress we held three hearings on the electronic employment l jilt verification system, and the committee marked up the legal work force act. in this congress we've already held one hearing on e-verify and

will today examine congressman smith's new version of the illegal work force act. at the outset, let me note that the new version contains several improvements over the version offered in the last congress, and i want to recognize the bill's sponsor for responding to some of the concerns raised at that time. for instance, when we marked up the legal work force act in the 112th congress, the bill exempted returning seasonal farm workers from having to be verified upon hire. this gigantic loophole came urn attack from all -- under attack from all sides. from the right it was attacked as amnesty, from the left as an admission that e-verify alone would destroy our agricultural industry and the millions of jobs held by u.s. workers that are supported by that industry. the committee struck this proriggs from the bill during markup, and i'm glad to sees the omitted from this version. the bill in the last congress also created new criminal penalties for unruffle conduct that were excessive and wasteful

in addition to imposing multiple mandatory prison terms, the bill made it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for a person to use a social security number that did not belong to him or her during the employment verification process. although this version of the bill still creates one mandatory minimum prison term, it contains a number of improvements pertaining to fraud and misuse of documents. and finally, this version contains some changes designed to make e-verify a little less unworkable for the social security administration which, obviously, serves a number of other critically important functionings. having said that, today's bill still contains several of the greatest flaws of the bill we considered in the last congress. it continues to provide no meaningful due process protections for authorized workers including u.s. citizens who may lose their jobs because of erroneous final nonconfirmations. the idea that americans and authorized immigrants will lose their jobs as a result of this .

although we know that the government continues to work hard to reduce error rates in e-verify, errors absolutely still exist. under this bill people would lose their jobs and become effectively unemployable for an indeterminant length of time because of such errors, and they would have no meaningful recourse. the bill also provides no penalties at all for employers who violate the requirement that they inform an employee about a tentative nonconfirmation and give that employee an opportunity to contest the tnc. the absence of any consequence renders the notice requirement completely toothless. but let me take a step back because although i welcome the opportunity to discuss how to design an effective and fair e-verify system, i believe it's clear that we can only do that together with other necessary reforms to our broken immigration system. we could design the best e-verify system imaginable, a system that's easy to use, 100%

accurate and available at virtually no cost to big and small businesses alike. but if we impose that system nationwide and did nothing to fix our immigration system, the consequences would be disastrous. i won't belabor the point because the issues are so familiar to members of this subcommittee, and we have witnesses who are prepared to testify. i will simply say that without top to bottom reform of our immigration laws, expanding e-verify would devastate the agricultural economy resulting in closed farms, a less secure measuring and the mass offshoring of millions of u.s. jobs including the upstream and downstream jobs that are created and supported by our agricultural industry. expanding e-verify without more would also cost the government significant tax revenues n. 2008 the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation concluded that mandatory e-verify in representaves

save act would decrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over a ten-year period. those offices determined that expanding e-verify in an economy with the significant undocumented work force and no way to provide for legal work force would drive employers and borkers off the books -- workers off the books and into the underground economy. the end result would be lost tax revenues and depressed wages and working conditions for all workers including u.s. workers. i believe firmly that e-verify must play an important role in helping to fix our immigration system, so i appreciate the proposal by representative smith. i thank chairman goodlatte and chairman god -- gowdy for the opportunity to discuss this today. i think we have further work to do, but i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses, and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentle lady from california. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the to full committee, mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

this is an important hearing, and we know that everybody's currently focused on the senate judiciary's markup of s. 744, and that's why we're encouraged by the ongoing efforts by members on both sides of the aisle to forge an agreement on an immigration reform pill in the house. bill in the house. that's why the u.s. chamber of commerce and the afl-cio were able to come together to forge a historic agreement regarding a future temporary guest worker proposal. it's why all of the major agricultural producers, amazingly including the american farm bureau and united farm workers, joined together to back changes to our agricultural guest worker program.

so i agree that we must talk about e-verify because it will be an important component of comprehensive immigration reform. but when we do so, we need to recognize the dangers that american workers would face if we were to make e-verify mandatory for all employers without fixing our immigration system. i think it's important whenever we talk about e-verify to talk about the real world actualities. sometimes we hear people say that e-verify will help american workers because every time an undocumented immigrant is denied a job, an unemployed american will get hired. that is a simple and appealing proposition but is probably not

correct. immigrants often fill critical gaps in our own work force, even in this difficult economy. there are entire industries that rely upon undocumented immigrants because there just aren't enough americans around willing to do the work. just look at how mandatory e-verify would affect agriculture. 50-75% of farm workers are undocumented. losing these workers would, obviously, be devastating. fruits and vegetables would rot in fields, and american farms would go under, and we'd see a mass offshoring of jobs up colluding millions -- including millions of upstream and downstream american jobs

supported by agriculture. .. to find a different crop to grow, but let's be clear about what it means. virtually all our lettuce from now will be imported from another country. the same is true for tomatoes, flowers, strawberries, the list goes on and on. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses, and i hope they will comment on some of my observations.

we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the smith legislative proposal. and in doing so, i hope that they each take some time to talk about whether they think it would be a good or bad thing for america and our workers, if congress made e-verify mandatory nationwide, without simultaneously fixing our broken immigration system. so, we talk about, i conclude, comprehensive reform. one, 11 million people on the path to an earn legal status. two, and most important, modernizing the flow of future immigrants so it works for both businesses and families.

and three, improved enforcement, including e-verify, but not on its own. thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to speak here. >> thank the gentleman from michigan. without objection other members opening statements will be made a part of the record. we have a distinguished panel of witnesses for which we're all grateful. we will begin by swearing you in and i will introduce you en bloc and they will recognize each of you for your five minute opening statement. if you would, please stand. [witnesses were sworn in] made the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. it is my pleasure to begin by introducing mr. angelo amador. mr. amador's vice president of labor and workforce policy with the national restaurant the national restaurant association. the advocates on behalf of the

national restaurant association and its members before the u.s. congress and executive branch. prior to join the nra he served as executive director of labor and immigration employment benefits division of the chamber of commerce and was a professor of law at george mason university school of law. is a graduate of smith school of business at the university of maryland and has a master of arts from george mason university. he earned his jd from george mason university will of all graduating cum laude. welcome, mr. amador. ms. jill blitstein is testified today on behalf of the college and university officials a station for human resources. she is currently the international employment manager at north carolina state university. her current position involves assisting department, faculty and staff immigration on these issues and overseeing the employment of people e-verification process in client procedures at in sea state university pride to join and see teachers a senior associate at chicago office of delray and i

apologized to former partners if i messed that up if i'm sure i did. from 1987-2007. she received her law degree from depaul university college of law in 1995. i would also like to note that she is a constituent of the subcommittee members, former distinguished u.s. attorney for whomever test that is in north carolina, welcome to ms. blitstein. julie myers wood is president of software solutions at guidepost solutions, and immigration investigation complaints from. she served as the assistant secretary dhs immigration and customs enforcement partner three years under her leadership the agency set new enforcement records with respect to immigration enforcement, export enforcement and intellectual property rights. she earned a bachelor's degree, and along with brittney greiner, is probably the most famous graduate of baylor university that i can think of, and earned a j.d. cum laude from cornell

law school. welcome, ms. wood. mr. dominick mondi is executive director of the new jersey nursey and landscape association, a trade group representing horticulture industry in the state, proudly joined the -- first of all working for a landscape design, build contractor, landscapes and later while running his own landscape design firm. mr. mondi serves as the advisory council for landscape industry program at rutgers university where he also graduated with a degree in landscape architecture. i will now, that hope was officially introduce all of you, ask you to indulge me while i recognize our chairman for his opening statement and then i promise we will go to you for your opening statement. the gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for being late, and i do have a great interest in

this issue and the hearing into witnesses, so i apologize to them. i did want to give my opening statement and i want to thank you and congressman smith for your hard work on this legislation. the future of immigration reform hinges on assuring the american people are immigration laws will be enforced. in the past americans were promised tougher enforcement in exchange for the legalization of those unlawfully in the u.s. succeeding administrations never kept these promises and today we are left with a broken immigration system. one way to make sure we discourage illegal immigration in the future is to prevent unlawful immigrants from getting jobs in the u.s. requiring the use of e-verify by all employers across the country will help to do just that. the web-based program is reliable and fast way for employers to electronically checked the work eligibility of newly hired employees. h.r. 1772, the legal workforce act, builds on e-verify's success and helps ensure that strong enforcement that was

promised the american people many years ago. the legal workforce act -- it empowers states to enforce the law ensuring we don't continue these mistakes of the past where a president can turn off federal enforcement efforts unilaterally. over 450,000 employers are currently signed up to use e-verify. it is easy for employers to use and is effective. in fact, as uscis testified in front of this committee this past february, e-verify's agassiz rate for confirmation of work eligibility is 99.7%. but the system is not perfect. for instance, in cases of identity theft within individual submits stolen identity documents and information, e-verify make them from the work eligibility of that individual. this happens because e-verify uses a social security number, or alien identification number,

and certain other corresponding identifying information such as the name and date of birth of an individual to determine if the social security number or alien identification number associated with the corresponding information is more collegial. does if an individual uses a stolen social security number and the real name corresponding with a social security number is a false positive could occur. the legal workforce act addresses identity theft in several ways. first it requires notification to employees who submit for e-verify asocial scooting number that shows a pattern of unusual multiple use. so the rightful owner of asocial scooting number will know that their socials getting number may have been compromised. once they confirmed as the department of homeland security and the social security administration must log that social security number so no one else can you support employment eligibility purposes. the bill also creates a program through which parents or legal guardians can lock the socia sos

getting numbers of their minor children for work eligibility. this is to combat a rise in number of deaths of children's identities. but there are other changes that should also be made. for instance, award to prevent identity theft, the uscis created and utilizes a photo much to of which photos from green card, documents and passports can be seen during the use of e-verify in order to open sure that the person submitting the identified acumen is, in fact, the person owns that document. but i've recently learned that uscis materials regarding the use of e-verify, specifically state that a photo displayed in e-verify should be compared with the photo in the document that the employee has presented and not with the face of the employ. what good is the photo match tool to prevent identity theft if the employer is prohibited from acting the photos to the person submitting the identity

document? this policy is ludicrous and we look to address it as this legislation moves forward. the bill also phases in e-verify used in six-month increments begin with largest u.s. businesses, raises penalties for employers who don't use e-verify according to the requirements, allows employers to use e-verify prior to the date they hired an employee and provide meaningful safe harbors for employers who use the system in good faith. h.r. 1772 balances the needs of the american people regarding immigration enforcement with the needs of the business committee regarding a fair and workable electronic employment verification system. i want to continue to work with the business community and other stakeholders to address any additional concerns with the bill, and i'm pleased to be an original cosponsor, and look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. again, thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, former chairman smith, and all who have worked

on this legislation. and i yield back the bounds of my time. >> thank the gentleman from virginia. each of our witnesses written statement will be entered into the record, in its entirety. so i would therefore ask you summarize your statements within five minutes so we can have the benefit of the answers to your questions as well in a timely fashion to help you stay within the five minutes, there is a lighting system in front of you, and delights me with a traditionally mean, like green's company, yellow means you have one minute left, and read means if you can conclude your thought with all deliberate speed that would be wonderful. so with that, we welcome all of you again and mr. amador, we'll start with you for your opening statement. >> thank you. my opening statement i have or remarks but after listening to all of you i'm going to try to take less of my five minutes and just address a couple of things. for over a decade i've been working with your staff and with

chairman jackson-lee, chairman smith, chairman sensenbrenner, a lot of the steps has changed but we have all worked on an employment verification title. so the question, there's only one issue. i'm also want before begin to say that i'm honored to be here before -- you may not limit but i started my career in d.c. working indirectly under him in his days as attorney general. so i will use my time except to say the only question seems to be before the committee and before congress is whether we should consider an employment verification system be made mandatory like excel or should it be considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package. when i look at it and we support pieces of immigration because what we want is immigration system to be fixed. such as liquid supported docket, the defer action, we support the

legal work. and the reason is in the over decade i've been working on programs and unemployment verification with staff to both sides, both parties, this is by far the best employment verification mandate that i've seen from the days of the bill in the senate to the gain of eight now. so what i would say to the committee, and if you don't take anything from my written testimony by the testament of others, is that it is upon you to look at employment verification title and see if you can improve it, and i think that doing it by itself we've had the benefit to be able to look at different pieces without the destruction of talking about a guest worker program which is also very complicated. but it is imperative that we look at the employment data by

itself. and again the only point i want to make is from all the bills that i've been able to submit comments and analyze, the legal workforce act is not perfect but haven't seen any perfect million, but it is by far the best employment verification mandate. it is simple, it makes accommodation for small businesses which is something that we've been asking for for years but and it creates one set of rules that would be across the nation for all impose. and even though we talk about 11 million illegal as one important piece, i would say that this is just as important to this would affect 6 million employers and this would affect 160 million people get verified to get worked verification. so it's very important that we get it right again in our opinion this is the best starting point moving forward. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. amador. ms. blitstein. >> chairman gowdy, ranking member lofgren, and honorable members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity

to you before you today to express support for the legal workforce act. i am the international employment manager at north carolina state university. in sea state is an active member of the college and university professional association for human resource. we represent more than 1900 -- 44% of which are public. i'm speaking today on behalf of h.r. my institution has been using e-verify since january of 2007 was mandated by the state of north carolina for all public employers and the university system. i have responsibility for the institutions i-9 and e-verify processes. with more than 8000 employees in almost a dozen more student workers and temporary employees during the academic year, including many foreign nationals, in c. stages of either five process is substantial. i speak you did someone has experienced a positive effects of this program and then most aspects of it to be administered manageable as well someone might offer some important suggestions as to his condition by other

employers. cupa-hr supports the majority of provisions enacted as being provocative for imposed in posted for example, we support the reduction in the number of documents acceptable to provided and work authorization to we support recognition of good faith compliance and we support the acts clear preemption of any state or local law on employment verification. nc state has not experienced the worst case of e-verify scenario that were circling several years ago, and in the '60s we been managing this process was experienced on a handful of cases in which a new higher could not present valid documentation or be cleared through the ether five process. code blue the process works as intended. that said, based on a direct expense we do have some concerns about the proposed timeframe for compliance. the act would require within six months all federal, state and local government employers must re- verified employment after the of all current employees not already in the e-verify system. having verified the entire

workforce and nc state university of kentucky with confidence that this is an unrealistic timeframe to achieve full compliance for large public employers. executive order one to 99 as amended in 2000 it requires that a contractors with contracts contain federal acquisition regulations to use e-verify to confirm the eligibility of employees working under the contract. nc state is a federal contract and we received our first of many foreign contracts in september of 2000. we quickly realized that if i'm individuals coming and going on our contract with impeccable so we sought the only other alternative verified arm tire workforce many every employee hired before january 1st 2007. with a six-month time frame to into 12,000 i nines and e-verify. it took us seven months to fully accomplish this goal even after hiring temporary staff. the time and effort by my office, my boss and others with significant achieve compliance for 12,000 employees. it was an acrylic intense effort

and we're now invested in an electronic system to help us manage that process. turn 11 would strongly encourage a longer face role of compliance timeline, particularly large public employers of 24 months. additionally, cupa-hr suggest a longer we verification prefer employees with limited work authorization. the act would require the verification of such employees including many foreign nationals. during three business days pursuing the expiration of their current work authorization. as an employer with over 3000 foreign nationals a year on our payroll it is the article for us to we verify all of them within three business days before the authorization expire. and unsupported that e-verification timeframe of 30 days. our spring semester just ended at nc state and the number of foreign nationals with my expiration date is in the hundreds. three business day verification period is not practical for employers like us with large numbers of individuals whose expiration dates may converge around the same time.

in closing i would say the legal workforce act as a balanced approach to create a more secure and flexible employment eligibility verification system but we respectfully encourage the subcommittee to consider the suggestions were offered and i personally think the members for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, ms. blitstein. ms. wood. >> thank you, sub chairman committee county, ranking member lofgren, mayors of the subcommittee it's going to be before you again and i appreciate the opportunity to spot about h.r. 1772, the legal workforce act. as all of you have already stated these challenges are not needed the government has not succeeded in effective at reducing the magna of unlawful employment. whether we are working to do this through several odds for criminal investigation, the government has not found the right mechanisms to compel widespread compliance with immigration law. in my ear, intending to effectively address the magnet of unauthorized employment, employers have been unfairly saddled with significant burden related to ensure enforcement of

our immigration laws. i think the legal workforce act take some very positive steps to address these burdens and provide additional tools to employers while ensuring that will make some progress in reducing this magnet. i want to highlight a couple of areas where think the bill does an excellent job, and areas where this bill may differ a little bit from the bill pending now in the senate. first, the bill levels the playing field by requiring mandatory employment verification and does so smartly by building on the existing e-verify framework but it's not requiring the creation of a new framework for its building on and using an existing to. although a sizable number of agency leaders are on e-verify and more joining every day, many industry's e-verify participation is still the exception rather than the rule. what i often your from employers, particularly in high-risk industry, is if they go and e-verify but the competitors do not and that their competitors continue to engage in high risk hiring practices undermined the market. this must change. second and i think of her

critical point is this bill reduces the burden on employers by combining the duplicative form i-9 and either five process into one single process. for employers this duplication is particularly problematic because they can be fun, they find errors in the i-9s even though the employees were found to be authorized to the e-verify system. an example of such error includes a failure of an employee to check a box indicating the employees of status even when the employer reported the appropriate document and employ went to the e-verify system successfully. even when employers are allowed to correct these paperwork errors they're still spending a lot of time and often a lot of money to make a piece of paper meet -- such a focus on the technical side of the i-9 defeats the purpose, and the purpose is to ensure that employers are authorized to work. finally, one of the biggest challenges that employers face is the e-verify system does not have a foolproof way to address identity theft.

this system the achilles heel remains limitations on the information is input into the system. if an employee is unable to confirm that the identity document presented october long to the individual present of them, then what value is there to employment offer determination. it's merely confirming the authorization of the day injured. even though u.s. it as has made considerable process and despite the efforts in this area, absent a strong identity tool tied e-verify come employers have been left to service document detection but the good news, i think the good news is that there are ways to improve the current system and there are many models for the pilots proposed by section 12. one system that i think really addresses this is the software since i helped develop call take your id. the system leverages outlook sector data and other information to provide real-time algorithm and this is a screen for employees. in conjunction with the i-9 and e-verify. it also has a lot of protection

oxygen processes to make sure that we represent adequately and take care of the rights of new immigrants. a secure id system of which the problem of making rank-and-file h.r. managers the identity investigator who in their well-intentioned efforts to put a legal workforce only ask certain new hires lots of questioquestions because the enh isn't great or their presenting certain documents. tools like the secure id system have proven to be extremely effective for employers with a significant identity fraud problems, if something like this could be used in a pilot as proposed in section 12. one of the ways are to it's been years right now, for example, is for managers to try to get out to the address employees who come into the daca process, people change their name and they have adjusted under daca, the employers are trying to decide how do we do that in a fair and consistent way because last time we were cool. last time with other authorized by the work. so by using a tool like this,

knowledge-based authentication, you can really do this in an effective way. employers have also used a system like this to address third party notification such as when the insurance company called you up and says, hey, this person you think is john doe is actually not john doe. and employers had to redo them how to address is inappropriate and not discriminate touring manner. there are tools like this and the private sector and i encourage and applaud the work done in the legal workforce act to look and see how can we push e-verify further and really address the problem of identity theft. effective employmenemploymen t their vacation is critical to reducing the magnet of unlawful employment and restoring integrity to our immigration laws protecting the legal workforce act takes a positive step and agree with my counterparts it's the best we've seen on this. to address this continuing problem. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you come and be glad to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> mr. mondi? >> thank you. good morning, thank you for the

opportunity to come to washington today to discuss a very important topic of immigration reform, e-verify and the work force at. congress has a chance repair our broken system and address border security and employment verification, earned legalization programs for future immigration guest worker programs. as for the e-verify these no one has more to gain from compensation and enforcement of improve the education system than the on the small business men and women we're trying to compete on a level playing field. good business owners don't look for the government to great credit -- and a comprehensive reform immigration system to help achieve that. the invitation of e-verify into backing out of the context of conference immigration package, pushing more labor to the black market an, increasing staff and hurting the thousands of small businesses in the nursery landscape and like-minded industry. this is not what we need. while we -- there's about a

large part of the workforce has been trained and has advance. mandatory e-verify much of its workforce o on the books with no evidence to legal work status. the loser is the honest business and the winner is the this on his company who tries to prices and wages. that are over 90,000 landscape company's in the country and most average under 20 employees throughout the you. these are truly small businesses that rely heavily on labor. these businesses need and ashley want a safe, legal and available labor pool. the existing workforce is displaced, where will they come from? there will be no nativeborn americans were willing or able to disparate. i myself have worked in the landscape and to in my entire life starting at the age of 16 to our nation's demographics, however, have changed over the last 50 years. there are certainly someone to do the work.

i meet them all the time. the pool to draw from is smaller and it does not meet the overall needs of our economy. older, slower growth, better education aside, what a good thing in regard, contribute in factor to the difficulties of many businesses in the industry and others like it have in finding qualified deliver. the acceptable be hardest hit of course. 50-75% of workers undocumented. we need proactive, forward thinking and conference immigration reform to address the challenges for the next generation of his own and workers in the industry. in previous testimony before the committee has been encouraging to hear about the improvement in the e-verify system. despite the recent and forthcoming, many employers will face challenges due to factors like limited high-speed internet, high seasonal, turnover, not harder, and lack of dedicated human resources personal step but we believe it is essential to program a simplified, and identity theft concerns are addressed it e-verify is to be phased in.

this bill does make strides in that direction. but the face in moscow and up with a broad reform package. into occlusion or partition supports the use of e-verify but only as part of a conference of approach to help the needs of our small business rely on immigrant workforce but if enacted we believe mandatory e-verify will be a clear net negative your interest and will small -- harm small business and did serious damage to the economy. thank you. >> thank all our witnesses for staying within the timeframe. the chair will not recognize the gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the full committee, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses, and i will start with you, mr. amador but i very much appreciate your testimony, and wondered if you would explain why the national restaurant association police in e-verify check should have been in the? >> well, as is garbage drafted,

one of the problems we're havi having, could be several months and under the law you still have to send into training com, you l need to do all these things. you have, it is an expenditure for an employer to do all of these things without knowing whether we will be able to get to the internet picks one of the things that my members, it has to be clear, we have to have an end date because we want to whether it will continue on a playroom or whether will have to let them go. we understand we have been talking to counsel and looking at the bill. we like the 10 days, three days, 10 days. in under certain circumstances, 23 days would be enough for the government to tell us whether the name, the individual is also working has a right to do so. >> very good. ms. wood, you know in your written testimony at having to comply with many different state and local employment eligibility

verification laws has been difficult for some larger employers with national footprint to manage all the requirements. would you comment on those difficulties? and companies avoid doing business in certain states or localities because of competing laws. you can comment on that but let's go to ms. wood spent we're probably on the same page on this one. you know, to say that a company, you don't want countries to think i shouldn't expand in colorado because there are additional verification she will make life difficult. h.r. managers are very difficult jobs as it is. we want them to spend all their energy making sure that the workforce is authorizes was managing other tasks. when there are a number of different route climate -- reported it's tougher to do it effectively. i think this bill takes good strides in making, you know, federal e-verify mandate and yet allowing states to have some ability to do certain things without a lot of them to impose

new requirements. >> and ms. blitstein, in the years the institute has been using e-verify have you situation in which e-verify help identify situation which documents presented by an individual for the i-9 process were not, in fact, valid even though they look valid on their face as current law requires? >> yes. to my knowledge we've had about two, maybe three at most but to that i can clearly remember. where the individual presented documentation that on its face appear to be valid and then through the e-verify checks we realized that it was, in fact, very good -- will, in one case at a good faith and in a case not quite as good. the system did catch those and then ended that employment spent if i could add one thing. i work with a lot of high-risk industry. when they come on to e-verify for the first time, they find a lot of incidents where there are found on confirmation to the pattern shifts and it's just

identity theft at that early on i think they find it very helpful, particularly the photo matching tool because even if you do regular training for h.r. managers on how to identify fraudulent documents, there is turnover in a position as well and it's tougher than to keep up on the latest changes. >> thank you. mr. mondi, what percentage of your interested employees are not authorized to work in the u.s.? if, as you state the new testament, unscrupulous employers who employ illegal workers poisoned a competitive marketplace. i'm quoting, suppress prices and hold down wages. why would you not want all of your competitors to be required to use e-verify as soon as possible? >> sure. i can't give you a specific percentage the that hasn't been good report on the. the challenge that a lot of businesses in the industry have no is that there's already a bottom feeding. no, if you will, at employers

who are paying cash under the table who are not necessary on existing laws. there's no reason to believe that they would discontinue the practice. we depend somewhat on how enforcement was enforced. but the challenge if they're already not following the practices, and the middle tier of employers who are, are forced to use e-verify, maybe get some undocumented workers, that they don't even know about, and all of that now, that part of the workforce gets displaced downward, there is an expanding labor pool for the bottom market and the good workers, good employees have a problem. >> got it, but one would presume if we make this mandatory, that one of the keys to that is not getting it mandatory that that bottom employed as you described them use the system, but that we have an aggressive system to make sure that they are indeed using the system. so i'm sure you would agree that

that should be a part of this. in fact, in this legislation while there's been concern expressed by some that we not have 50 different states having 50 different e-verify systems, we have also recognize that the states have a role in helping the federal government, which meant more limited resources, and checking to see if businesses are indeed using e-verify to have a much greater compliance effort there to check to make sure business are indeed using it. so what's with the system up and operate we want it to work fairly for the employer and the prospective employee, but we also want to make sure that everyone is using it. that's really the whole point of this legislation, to have it mandatory for everyone is using it, including the people who are getting away with things today that they shouldn't be getting away with. >> i agree 100%. one of the unique, more unique challenges of the landscape ministry, like some of the construction trades is oftentimes a lack of any centralized office or location.

so we see within environmental regulation as well were certain companies, it's hard to track them down if they are dodging licensees or things like that. because you can go to the office if you want, it's generally a room in a house or maybe it's a small yard where the owner is but he picks up his work to and from the yard, their offsite location to sometimes not just day-to-day but our to a. and, unfortunately, it becomes a real challenge spent my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> franco-german from virginia. the chair will not recognize ms. lofgren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to follow up with chairman goodlatte's line of inquiry, mr. mondi, if i can. because if i'm hearing you correctly, there's an important goal that i think all of us woulwageshares, which is everyby complied with the same rules so that it's a level playing field. no breaches and gets ahead. but there's an additional

element i think and this is really my question, which is if there's not enough people to actually higher to do the job, then what? so you're in new jersey with the landscape association. in the last congress, you know, some people actually said that it wouldn't be so bad if people in landscaping and agriculture were denied access to needed workers, then they would go to mechanized efforts and they would fill in with technology, the loss of human capital. would that work in the landscaping industry? on income and the estimate is we don't know, of course, but the essence is it's over half of the employees may not have their proper papers, and if kim them a false document. i'm not suggesting that every employer knowingly hired someone not authorized. would it work if half or

two-thirds of the employees in the landscaping business in new jersey were no longer able to our? >> well, no. you would fundamentally change the structure of the whole industry. traditionally, you're talking about people who are younger and can handle working outside a lot of things like that, and that's our demographic shift, the labor pool is getting smaller. on the agriculture side, we have a lot of nursery producers, tied to highlight of the a lot of the production just shifted away from high labor practices you would see a loss of access to local food, especially crop growers should other practices or you see a lot of open face with rmi, sorting not something we want either. new jersey prides itself, the garden state, on agriculture. on the landscape industry, it

proposes a lot of challenges, challenges as well. you start to actually see a separation that you might actually get to the point where there's less people to do the work and less coverage in the work. hyperinflation of the industry which would start to make homeland giving, gardening, landscaping which many average americans and certainly new jersey can enjoy these days to become unreachable, gratis higher tier of a state guard in the go back to the estate gardener type of status for that community. while possibly having some sort of undercurrent down below. it's tough to say without having an exact number or an except percentage of the workforce that is undocumented, but i don't have in preparation for today, calling my members and asking questions, new jersey has high unemployment and employers are advertising online and in print and everybody would traditionally do that than

having a hard time finding a place to do the work that they need. so it's already a challenge. if that workforce is in place gets displaced it would only get worse. >> what, if you are seeking some percentage of immigrants in the workforce, is there any way for people to legally, -- i remember years ago i was so honored when dr. richard lance from the southern baptist convention was a witness before our subcommittee, and i always mention that because i don't want to steal his line. it was a great line. and he said for years we had two signs at the southern border. one sign said no trespassing, and the other sign said help wanted. and there's only 5000 visas a year for unskilled workers, without a college diploma.

are you able to meet the needs in new jersey with those 5000 visas in our current system? >> we have a lot of employers abusing the htv program right now for some the temporary seasonal labor. and it's tough to find one that doesn't have obligations with the system in any system isn't perfect. >> there's a cap on that as well. it is usually not right away. >> there is a cap on that piccolos our economic times of years ago it was okay. a few years before that the cap was met with in the first week of findings and it is a real problem. and even now, you know, anecdotally speaking with someone, when my members on the way of your, they asked for 20 employees. they get 16, four are still stuck in their home country. and you know when you're talking of seasonal work, and a season like process is coming for me to hire more sales people. we're talking that when the

spring hits, it's time to go. you need your workers when you need them or you lose work, you lose revenue, and then honestly that's a problem. >> i see my time has expired. i thank the chairman and yield back. >> thank the gentleman from california. the chair would not recognize the gentleman from texas, judge to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. as we progress through this whole numerous issues on immigration, i think there are numerous issues that as a look at immigration law, take any subject and it's broken. all the way up and down the ladder. and i think and i commend the chairman for being methodical of taking one issue at a time and trying to solve each of those. when it comes to workers, i used to be one that thought that americans can continue to work they would take any job. well, we've been proven wrong about that in the orchard

guy. i don't know if they grow peaches and south caroline or not. >> we grow more than they do. [laughter] spent we don't go to many. but anyway, american farmer wanted to hire 2000 workers, put all the ads outcome hired every american that applied, 490 some odd. each season is a. he had three americans working for him. americans don't take those jobs. they have other options. my own velocity, when it comes to workers, temporary guest workers, on both ends, high skilled of those killed, we need as many as we need, for sure. higher americans first, make sure we fill those i still, low skill jobs with americans first, but how many do we need lex like a sitcom as many as we need to

in t marketplace will drive us on the. i don't think we should set arbitrary numbers. i do think the labor union should. the chamber of commerce, congress has to figure out a way, maybe that fluctuates in year-to-year, i don't know, but my philosophy is market place driven. and the issue of verifying who is working and was not working, and making sure we keep up with workers and they go home when they're supposed to go home, all those issues. i commend chairman smith trying to make it simpler, but i say all that to say this, what do they do in other countries? were not the only country in the world that is facing this tremendous issue. have any of you done research with the other 194 countries there are in the world, if you can't texas, 195 countries left in the world on this specific issue? and how do they solve the

e-verify concept that we're talking about? to any of you want to weigh in on that? >> well, it's a big question, yes. a lot of countries have done many different things. i'm not saying that they should be appropriate for the united states. again, if you look at europe, they solve the problem by not letting poor countries send workers to rich country. that's how they solved their problem. they have similar ways of verifying identity. they have different ways, you as employer are required to send a list every month to the government with everybody on. there are different ways of doing it. from the perspective of the united states, i think building on a system that employers are becoming more familiar with i think is the right way to go. on the issue of workers, as you mentioned, i think we do not support the visa part of the gang of a proposal that would like to the bill as a whole but again negotiating all those

things integrating a lot of flaws. i would hope that this committee after taking e-verify would look at, i know you're looking at agriculture next, a look at other portions that maybe come up with a better title so when people come here you're able to come up with a better package. >> any of the others really want to weigh in on that? >> i think e-verify is a pretty good system and its increasingly doing kind of a better and better job. we don't have a demand-side which is part of the reason when that kind of an effective comprehension -- comprehensive immigration reform to any system that does not want a national id card is a pretty good job and i think the government is to make issue indeed you. when i was in the government, several years ago, we would move the most many other countries to talk about migration challenges and they would ask advice from us and we would ask advice from them. so it's not myspace that someone has assaulted australia has an advantage because it harder to get there. those kind of things. other countries have national id cards can focus on the.

we work with several countries on effective worksite enforcement and challenges, because they think global migration patterns and issues is a real challenge for everyone but i do think we are making some progress on help -- i've met. >> one other comment or question. mr. amador, if i own a franchise, let's use chick flick it on a franchise owner, who is responsible for checking my employees? is it me, is a third party, or is it chick-fil-a corporate? >> french ends to do with the biggest missed conception and are interested when you see a brand name you think it's a huge company behind it. a lot of them is usually a mom-and-pop that may own two or three franchises or just one. is responsive for his employees. that's the way it is because liability and other matters. so just to be able to cooperate as well as some data may own 100 or so franchises.

>> is the franchise owner that is responsible for the employees? >> that's correct spent i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair would now recognize the gentleman from michigan, ranking them of the full committee, mr. conyers. >> mr. chairman, may i be skipped temporarily? i have someone waiting. >> certainly. >> thank you very much. >> i believe would then go to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you so much. i want to first of all thank all of the witnesses, and i want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle i am ready to support a vigorous, rigorous program to verify employers but i do not want to see a continuation of a permanent underclass of workers in this country.

i want to fix our broken immigration system. i think that is essential and critical to any comprehensive immigration reform packages to have e-verify. and i want to make sure it works. i want to make sure that as well suggesting today that if there is an employer in america who wishes to hire an undocumented worker, that the full weight of the law is applied to the individual. and i would hope that as part of any process we, especially in the first few months, that when we catch any scoundrels out there attempting to hire undocumented workers, that we enforce the full force of the law against them. because, you know, it takes to, it takes also not every employer is hoodwinked by someone with false papers. there are employers who

knowingly and willingly undermine american citizen workers by giving workers undocumented workers but and i want to end of that. i want to end it, not only for the american workers, but i want to in the inherent exploitation that exist of the undocumented worker. i think we need understand that i am for e-verify because i want everybody verified for the system. we have a great nation. things are getting better. how are they getting better? everybody tells us, osha tells us america workers are safer than ever before. tragically 13 died every day and never come home. but they are safer. but when you extract like innocent group, more latinos are getting hurt on the job and more latinos are dying on the job as the rate is declining for the overall pool of american workers. i want not to end. so i'm ready for e-verify. i am ready to verify everyone.

but let me just suggest the following. in the absence of a comprehensive immigration reform package, where are the votes to get the public policy? they are sorting not going to come from this side of the aisle, and we're going to difficulty in reaching a grand bargain. and this, i want to state categorically, is part of the bargain, and essential, fundamental part of any agreement of comprehensive immigration reform, enforcing, internal enforcement. it will stop and not allow a future event where used to come we have millions of other undocumented workers exploited against the so if you look at this from my point of view, and humanity and the safety and the justice of immigrants and working men and women, or from a public safety point of view, or from an economic point of view, take the view you wish.

we should be able to reach an agreement on comprehensive immigration reform. now, if you allow the 11 million out there, then what you're asking me is to take our broken immigration system and unleashed upon them and e-verify system that is only going to make them go deeper into a more exploited state where there will be more people that can prey upon them. i can't do that. i can do this and i will encourage all of my colleagues to do this in good faith, to keep america safe. so i want to thank you, chairman gowdy, for putting this thing together. i hope we continue to have hearings like this. i think e-verify is important. i believe we can make america safer, and make our workers safer, and live by this.

any job created in america should go to an american first. and to the are plenty of work for others to come to this country as they have in the past. think is a much. >> thank the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to ask for 10 minutes t.my five minutes plus the five minutes that mr. gutierrez did not use her questions. [laughter] i can only say that about a friend but i appreciate him for all his contributed immigration reform debate. and i do want to say it's nice here everyone who's here as a witness, when, in fact, all my colleagues support e-verify either alone or often in conjunction with other immigration reforms but and i certainly appreciate that. mr. amador, i would like to start off with you if i could. i don't know if i heard you mention in your oral statement the recent survey that was taken of the national restaurant

dj mentioned in your opening statement? the recent survey that -- could you go into some detail about the survey? >> sure. the survey that was completed late last year, we got more responsive that without we're going to get. got about 800 of our members, large, small suppliers. so we got a very good picture of membership comment on e-verify. you know, those members that use and members that did not use it. one thing that, last time we tested of the national restaurant association testified before the committee, it was all in the total. now we have the evidence. the evidence shows that the largest companies, the larger members, already 49% of them are using e-verify. and out of those, two-thirds of those that are using e-verify sign-up to use a voluntarily. one thing i will mention is, the whole idea that we cannot do

enforcement alone, it's already happening. my members are seeing it but it is to i get alot of pushback from my guys in california to why i use bring the legal workforce act will not be mandated. more and more it is mandated across borders and is having different mandates. that's one of the complaint. it's not enough in their view, it's not just e-verify, is not just e-verify in colorado, e-verify of arizona, if they want a neutral playing ground would have won world to follow. for those who are not using e-verify, i would say that the number one comment they said was what is any tort reform and would like some options. >> mr. amador, i just want to make the point that i thought the survey also joe specifically that 79% of restaurant owners viewed e-verify as 100% accurate. is that -- >> they found to the best of the knowledge it was 100% accurate. >> when you can find 79% of any group of individuals think that anything is 100% -- that answer

did not expect and we were happy to see it. another one that was very interesting is 80% of those that use e-verify recommend e-verify to the colleagues. colleagues. >> to your knowledge of the use of e-verify, the cost is minimal by the various owners? >> that's what they are saying in the survey. one comment for those who do not use it, for those that use it already have internet access, already have a framework in place spent with the average time it takes to check a potential of future employee? >> it takes minutes. >> two to three mins is what i've heard. >> two to three minutes. and the number one complaint was the regional question at the beginning of the hearing, was the nonconfirmation throws a wrench into the system to so the two or three minutes we lost by the nonconfirmation adds

additional cost. >> and the nonconfirmation shouldn't be a surprise, maybe take her in the restaurant business, but in any business because across the country about 5% of the workforce is illegal. so when we find out that 5% across the board don't get them from, that's not a flaw in the system but that's showing that the system works. >> and the concern they have with exceptions that been created, it's a very neighborly business, like so you turn someone down and they go to another restaurant because it happens biggest that's what everybody needs to use e-verify. ms. blitstein, i wanted to go back to statement and wanted to really clarify for the record, when you talked about applying e-verify to the current employees, that i want to make sure that others understood that the bill yes, does apply to current employees when comes to federal contractors, for example. but as far as all of the businesses, we are talking of future employees. so the burden is not going to be

there, the burden that you might feel, and we can talk more about what to do about it. but that byrne is not going to apply and i would say 99% of the cases. the bill allows an employer to check current employees if they check all employees, and that's in an effort to avoid discrimination. it again, that's voluntary. we don't force everybody to check their current workforce. i just wanted to make sure that was clear. i appreciate your saying that e-verify works as intended and that it's a balanced approach as well. is my time already of? made i will go into mr. gutierrez five minutes. no, no. my time is up, ms. wood, let me just thank you for testimony very quickly, and may i ask you what benefit you think e-verify has for american workers? sometimes that gets lost it will talk of foreign workers but i don't think we talk enough about the benefit to american work. mr. chairman, if i could ask for

your indulgence for to answer that one question? >> certainly. >> it provides an even plaintive for authorized workers when they apply for the system. it encourages employers just to have wages and other things that are not undercut because they are depending on an illegal or unauthorized workforce. >> thank agenda than from text. the chair would have recognized the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> i think it has a certain ring to it. thank you very much mr. chipman. and as my good friend, mr. smith is leaving, let me thank you and the ranking member. and i wanted to make mention of the fact for the record that yesterday we completed in homeland security one of the components to comprehensive immigration reform which is a very strong border security bill. and i wanted to make mention for this committee that mr. smith and i join on an amendment that covered operational control for -- border.

i just want to show a sign of bipartisanship and cover for this committee as we look at these issues. .. >> i understand the challenges that they have, and i would also say that they seek to hire anyone who will come and be a good worker and do the job and stay on the job. you have given opportunity to young people, i'm hearing that you're hiring seniors because

seniors are coming back to work in between. and there are people in your business, businesses that use the restaurant job as their income for their family. so i think your work is very important. and i wanted to just ask a straight out question because i wanted to make sure we were correct. the national restaurant association is supporting a comprehensive immigration reform, is that not the case? >> we support immigration reform whether it is one piece at a time, whether it's only backup, and we support legalization and legal work status for i wouldn't say all, but certainly a great number of the 11 million. >> my understanding is that you've gone on record for access to legalization for the 11, 12 million undocumented individuals? >> of course, with caveats if you have a criminal record and things like that. >> well, our bill will cover all that. >> other than that, yes.

>> you are. and you would certainly be happy if components of what you're interested in came out in the form of a come prehencive immigration package. >> correct. >> so we can work together. i wanted to just go over -- and thank you for that. and i want to look very closely at this legislation, certainly the chairman has made a great effort. one of the things i want to applaud the chairman of the full committee for and the ranking member is that we do have regular order and that this committee has the ability to participate in the process and, hopefully, we'll find that there are people here who will work for the greater good. i want to ask ms., is it blitzsteven? let me get that correct. one of the things i wanted to raise very quickly is the question of due process. and the ability to challenge the

idea that i am documented. do you have an answer to that? there's no provision in this bill for due process if someone is claimed falsely that they're not, they don't verify but they are a status or have -- are a citizen or have status? >> h.r. would be in support of measures that could afford someone due process. no system is completely perfect, and while we support the work force act provision, that doesn't mean we wouldn't be supportive of some mechanism like that. >> that'd be very helpful. i want to go back to mr. amador. one of the concerns raised is the system returns an unacceptably high percentage of erroneous confirmations and nonconfirmations. and we've heard testimony from u.s. cis that improvements have been made, but will that pose a problem? i've heard from the restaurant association that that has been a problem. >> it used to be a bigger problem. and, again, you know, we had

originally opposed, and this is years ago, when it was first mandated we had opposed e-verify. but the improvements are significant, and our members are telling us that, you know, when people go back, they're able to fix those problems. >> but you would want to make sure that those problems would be fixed. >> well, of course. >> yes. >> we would like the system to always improve, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be mandated because it's working -- >> i appreciate it. mr. mondi, i'm sorry, let me just appreciate your industry as well, and i don't want you to have to go out of business. what about the idea of how much this would cost maybe for the employer, for the employee and fraudulent documents. and your industry is seasonal, what kind of major impact that would have on you. >> um, so -- >> how much, how much the system would cost, maybe cost the user, etc. >> if -- >> added cost. >> it would add a lot of cost in lost time. so actual dollars spent if the technology advancements do come

to fruition with smartphone application and telephonic, that might be very helpful. if your office is the cab of your pickup truck, however, any sort of additional paperwork burden is just that. it takes more time in the office,less time in the field. you're talking about owner-operators who spend as much time with their hands on a shovel as they do on a keyboard, right? so the biggest loss of money is going to be through additional time and administrative burdens. if today don't have hr staff, you know, they cover every aspect of the business. and so when you're off site, when you don't have an office, when you don't have dedicated office staff, any type of paperwork burleds become a challenge. >> let me thank the witnesses and, again, if i might add my appreciation for the restaurant association and the work mr. amador has done with us. can we continue to work together? >> yes. >> i would love to do that. i want to thank the chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you, gentlelady from

texas, the chairman would now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want the thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. i listened to the theme through here that there's work that americans won't do, and having spent my life with a lot of time with a shovel in my hands or down in the ditch, i actually haven't found anything i won't do or anything i can't get my sons to do or our crew to do whether it's 126 degrees heat index or 60 below wind chill, we do what needs to be done. and there are an awful lot of americans that are naturalized, native-born americans that are out in the cold and the wind and the heat in the ditch doing this work every single day. and i pay attention. around this city i can send my staff out with a video camera, and we can find all kinds of work done in this city done by americans doing work that americans won't do.

i want to put that to rest and make the point that, for example, 75% of illegal aliens in this country have less than a high school degree, high school degree or less. and household headed by a high school, someone with a high school -- without a high school degree will draw down, will pay taxes about $11,469 in taxes, and they'll receive about $46,582 in benefits. that's a net fiscal deficit of $35,113. what we're talking about here is a nation that has a cradle-to-grave welfare system. this is not 1900. this isn't 1907 when the previous way of immigration peaked. this is the cradle-to-grave welfare system in the united states. and milton friedman said clearly that the open borders program and a cradle-to-grave weller if system cannot coexist. what we're doing here is speaking of the comprehensive

immigration reform policy that's recurred here is that we're really talking about taxpayers subsidizing the difference between the cost of sustaining a household and the wages that can be drawn into that household from someone who is, i'll say, of lower education, not necessarily lower skills. and i'd ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the rocket rector d robert rector report and ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. then i wanted to ask the question of mr. amador, the bill prohibits an employer from checking current employees unless they check all current employees. so let me suggest that if you had a national restaurant burger chain and you had in one or more of the locations you had reasonable suspicion that a high percentage or even any of your work force was working unlawfully, under this e-verify

bill how would you go about doing your due diligence as a citizen to verify those employees if you had that administrative burden of all the employees in the nation as ms. blitz -- b blitstein has said? >> i know she reported on it a little bit. when the obama administration continued the policy of the bush administration requiring federal contractors to reverify the entire work force, the u.s. chamber of commerce filed a lawsuit. they have since lost that lawsuit, but it was costing millions of dollars to reverify people that had already gone through the current system, and there was no suspicion of any of them being undocumented. the same is still true for the entire work force. it is very expensive to go back and reverify, particularly in our industry where you have such a high turnover rate, to bring even in and make sure that you didn't miss anybody, even the owner. because if you did that, you

open yourself for liability. >> would you prefer to have the option that an employer at a location could simply run one or more of the employees through e-verify that were current employees? >> that doesn't mean that we want to waive other nondiscrimination and anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time, you know, if you have good cause, if you have reason to believe -- >> and i could get into that discrimination piece because the computer doesn't know the difference. but i would go to ms. wood in the time that i have left, because one of my other concerns, and i have a couple, but one of my other concerns is we have an executive branch that refuses to enforce immigration law. so it's hard for me -- although i like a lot that's in this bill, it's hard to get to the point where i can expect that with a promise of enforcement of immigration law we'd actually get enforcement because i've been watching this since 1986 and been disappointed with every administrationon this issue. how can we expect the law to be enforced once the president wants it to and beliefs in it?

>> well, i think it's tough. as i noted in my written testimony, it's been a challenge. how can we do this more effectively? that doesn't mean we give up. and i think this bill and more and more employers going on e-verify is a good start. i would note that verifying one employee at a time, i do think we have to be careful and build in some civil rights and civil liberty kind of protection because you could have a well-intentioned hr manager that would just decide that only employees that speak english well, those would be the ones i want to run through for existing employees. so i think you have to be careful if you allow people to run just an individual employee through without suspicion or particular investigation that would lead them to that. >> thank you, ms. wood. i would note, mr. chairman, you've already made the decision to hire, that would be when the discrimination would take place, and i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman from iowa. now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. gasser garcia. >> -- garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. wood, you favored

comprehensive immigration reform. >> that's right. and i still do. >> good. just want to get back to the a statement that was just made. you would assume that is since we're deporting about half a million people a year that this administration is enforcing immigration law. >> i think that no administration, the bush administration included, has been effective in truly reducing the magnet of unlawful employment. i think we've all tried, we've tried in different ways, and we haven't succeeded. so i think it makes sense to look at how can we improve our overall system. one of those ways is by making e-verify mandatory and looking at that. i certainly think that the continuation of the secure communities program has been a positive thing, and there have been other positive things in the obama administration as well. >> thank you. i'm glad that you agree that we're enforcing immigration law. that's an important aspect to this. want to ask you following up, you would, you would agree with

me that sort of continuation of an immigration system that's broken under the current confines makes absolutely no sense, right? do something to fix and address, that you're probably trying to do the impossible. i think we have a responsibility >> i think our system is broken, to do that. even though it's tough and even has been broken, and we need to though the answers, frankly, may not be perfect. but i do think this bill on the e-verify piece, i'll say, is, in my view, better than the proposal in the gang of eight relating to employment verification. so i hope that something similar to this could be considered at an appropriate time. >> i would imagine that because you believe in comprehensive immigration reform you see this as a part of a broader, broader component, this is but a component of an overall immigration overhaul and that what we need to do is fix it all at once and get it done, correct? >> we need to fix it, but if this is all we could do, i would say let's start with this. so, you know, i certainly think we need to fix it, but just like daca, it may be that there are portions of reform that make

sense in different chunks and that the american people and congress would be able to do that in kind of sizable pieces. and i'm not opposed to that. if we can do it in one overall bargain, all the better. but we've got to make sure we get every piece of it right, interior enforcement right, border enforce be lt right, future demand right, and that's very difficult particularly in a bill that's almost 900 pages. >> you do realize, though, the complexity when we have members of this committee who find the ability of doing immigration at all or making an assertion, almost the ludicrous assertion that americans are willing to do all these jobs when we've found that has not been the case across the board probably for the last two decades, correct? >> these are incredibly tough issue, and i think the fact that congress is focusing on them so much now makes a lot of sense. and so i just hope that there's political courage on both sides of the aisle to seek for a reasonable situation that's not perfect be, doesn't satisfy everyone's equities, but moves

the ball forward, because the current situation we are in, i think, is not tenable and not sustainable in the way we'd like for the american public. >> okay. i wanted to -- thank you. i wanted to ask mr. mondi a few, a question. so, you know, implementing the, these requirements to the agriculture industry last time it came up there was sort of an outcry because it could, basically, shut down the agricultural industry. and, in fact, there were consequences when we had enforced certain provisions in certain parts of the country. so is, is the e-verify that we're proposing here workable for your industry, and would you -- >> e-verify is important as part of -- there's a couple other componentings. i know after this hearing you're going to be discussing work force, guest worker bill.

and for specific comments, certainly, that panel can address those. but there's also the legalization factor where if you have people who develop skills over time that have been here working hard which we know in agriculture in particular since that's your question there's a lot of them, without some -- you can't pick up three-quarters of the work force, throw them out and just bring in, replace that with new people that have no experience, um, and maybe even ability. so i think that e-verify is going to absolutely be a part of advancing agriculture. but i think it's going to be imperative that there's a guest worker program and that there's some legalization program as well. >> or a broader comprehensive -- >> and all those things together are contingent on each other, so they need to be together. >> thank you, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair would now recognize the former u.s. attorney, mr. holding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. blitstein, welcome.

i understand you are a constituent of mine, so it's a delight to have you before the committee today, so i'll ask you a few questions. in the years that nc state's been using the e-ererfy system, have you had situations in which e-verify has helped identify places in which documents presented by an individual for the i-9 process were not, in fact, valid even though they looked valid on their face as current law requires? >> in our experience we -- and i can think of about two situations that i can think of with clarity where the system did catch that they were fake documents. one of -- they were both green cards or permanent resident cards. one of them was actually very good, and it took me a little while after we got the result to figure out where some of the fraudulent aspects came in, and there was one that was not quite as good. but the system captured that right away, and we terminated that employment. >> and did you follow up with

law enforcement at all on the fraudulent documents? >> we did not. and because through the e-verify system now at least department of homeland security was aware that those individuals were using fake documents, and so we ended our employment which was our obligation, and then that's when we ended the matter. >> and do you have any idea whether d. of homeland security -- department of homeland security followed up on to car insurance of fake -- the occurrence of fake documents being used? >> on those two instances i am not aware, and homeland security did not reach out to my office at all about those two individuals. >> the, this is to the whole panel. as a situation like that arises and, you know, you catch an instance of false documents, have any of you ever gone beyond what is required and reached out to law enforcement to ask them to follow up on, hey, we have someone here using false documents?

>> um, i work with some companies that under the image program have a protocol where they could relate certain things to i.c.e. and so have done that on certain occasions, but it's not where they have an individual employee that has a problem, but where they're seeing a current problem or something else, where the fraud is shifting and trying to get somewhere else through the system, and they report that. >> all right. again with to you, ms. blitstein, how many resources are wasted when an employer is required to actually hire an employee before the employer can check the work eligibility of that employee and subsequently finds out that the new employee is not work authorized? >> um, because of the industry that i'm in, higher education, i would say that we are unique from some in twe not found a large instance where we did subsequently have any issues with documentation. so it is not something that has occurred and wasted a lot of our

time. but certainly like my colleagues can say, i do understand when you get the tentative nonconfirmations and that process can take a while to get resolved that there are resources that potentially could be affected where you're training someone and they have to leave. at least at nc state we have not really had that as a situation. >> and if i could just add -- >> sure. >> particularly what we see in the proposed senate bill, the idea that after a nonconfirmation ap individual can then -- an individual can then go to an alj, there's so much uncertainty for an employer. and i think that is problematic, and is we're going to have employees who are not authorized who are going to try and game the system and stay and work as long as possible. so i think stretching out the amount of time before the employer has a final decision could be a problematic thing in terms of business operation, money wasted onorra people who ultimately aren't authorized, etc. >> and i would like to add -- >> yes, sir. >> in our industry it's the opposite. because of the demographics of our industry, and we are very

proud of how diverse it is at all levels from managers to cooks to dishwashers, you know, we're very proud of that, but we get a disproportionate amount of set of nonconfirmations than other industries. the number one cost the cost of training. you are training this individual for a job that he may not have the following day, and at the same time you cannot hire somebody else to do the job. so that's the number one reason. so one thing that is very important that we have been asking for for years from both democrats and republicans is something that is in this bill. being able to conditionally hire somebody that saying, well, if everything checks, you know, right now you can look at background checks, you can look at all of these other checks except employment authorization. under this bill you can make employment conditional on a final nonconfti that's very important because you do not waste all that time and money, you know, training somebody that might not end up working for you after all. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from

north carolina. the chair would now yield to the gentlelady from california for a question. >> yeah, just one quick question,. ms. wood. you, i think, said that it would be a concern that unauthorized workers would game the situation to string it out. do you have any, are there any studies or, i mean, any evidence to support that statement? because at least in what we've seen, people who are here unauthorized, the last thing they want to do is come to attention of anybody. i mean, they're high-tailing it down the street if they get caught. what data do you have to support that? >> um, certainly there are companies that i've worked with where that has occurred, and so i think that the attitude is changing a little bit, and part of that may be people hoping there's going to be reform in the system, and if they can just work a little bit longer, two, three weeks while they're employing for a job down the street, we may see that. even, unfortunately, even people who are authorized but maybe new

immigrants if there's a tnc that came back, sometimes they would leave the job if they shouldn't have. but now we're seeing people who are contesting even final --? >> if you could provide us some examples of that, i would appreciate it. i remember my former counsel on the subcommittee when i chaired who was an american citizen, and, you know, on the immigration counsel who was given a tentative nonconfirmation. >> right. >> it took her -- she's an immigration lawyer, i was chair of the immigration subcommittee -- >> that might have been the problem. [laughter] >> with it took her almost a month and a half to sort it out. >> yeah. >> and if there's no process, you just get fired. and if you don't get notified -- >> right. >> are -- you can never fix it. >> you certainly should have a process, and i think the current process generally works. we have had some people that have gotten a final nonconfirmation but are authorized, and what they've been able to do, and we've helped them get that resolved. so i do think it's important that on a an individual basis there are ways that if the

government's not doing it, they go and address it. what i'm concerned about is institutionalizing the alj and other layers -- >> i'm not necessarily talking so much about the senate bill as much as the need for americans -- >> oh, yeah. and i think the current tnc process works generally quite well. >> i want to stop. >> and as a quick reminder, you can see this entire hearing anytime online. go to our web site, c-span.org. we are going live now to a senate judiciary committee markup session on immigration policy and the bipartisan measure sponsored by the gang of eight. so far the committee has taken up over 80 amendments, there are 200 to go. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

>> senator sessions, senator grassley, myself, senator feinstein, senator schumer, durbin, klobuchar, franken. first off, i want to, i want to thank the mayor of the senate side of capitol hill, senator schumer, who got us out of the dungeon. i will not repeat my architectural critique of the room we met in last week, but i appreciate being in this room. which will be better. so, chuck, thank you very much. >> chairman, senators wyden and klobuchar and congressman grady graciously consented. they had dibs on this room, and they consented to let us have it. >> i want to thank senator -- i

want to thank all of them for doing that. i'll be brief so we can get us going. it's our fourth day considering amendments of this bill. that was -- incidentally, these numbers are worth thinking about because i remember some of the accounts having weeks to get anything out. well, we've had four days considering it. that's as many sessions are held in the committee on the immigration control act of '86. at that time the committee considered a total of 11 amendments. we considered twice as many on each of the three days we were able to meet this month. members of the public have been able to follow it. we've had our proceedings following the policy that began a number of years ago. all our proceedings are streamed live online. and our committee web site's

being logged, being updated realtime, and c-span, of course, has covered it. the committee has voted to accept 67 amendments offered by senators from both sides of the aisle and with different attitudes on the bill. so i thank the senators in both parties for the cooperation getting us where we are today. we completed two of the four titles. important trigger provisions. i'd like to complete work on title iii today, the immigrant visa provisions. so tomorrow and wednesday we can concentrate on title ii, the fundamental provisions on citizenship. i think after the debate we've had, we may be able to complete this wednesday night. now, of course, if we don't, we'll continue thursday and friday. i ask at the outset of our work senators consider which of their filed amendments they need to offer so we can make progress.

i know a number of senators have told me that they do not intend to offer all the amendments that they have filed. so, and i appreciate the comments we've received from people both for and against the bill thanking us for the transparency we have here. just so you know the schedule today, we will break for lunch from around 12:30 to 1:30. we will then break 5-6 because we have one or two votes on the floor, and senator grassley and i are involved with that. and then we'll come back at 6:00 and continue this evening. senator grassley? >> yes. first of all, i find no fault with your schedule for the week. and when you do get started, i don't have a statement to make, but i do have some questions to

ask on asylum and refugee part of it and the law enforcement part of it. and i ask these questions for information purposes and not for argumentative purposes. and if we can get answers to our questions, i think we can move along very quickly. >> did you wish to ask them of -- >> whenever you want me to. >> members, where are we on -- >> so it'd be to the group of eight or anybody else -- >> then i would feel free, why don't you go ahead and ask the questions of senator schumer, senator durbin, senator flake are here. go ahead and ask your questions. >> okay. this is on asylum and refugee, section 3405 provides for protections for certain stateless persons in the united states and allows the secretary to designate specific groups of individuals who are considered stateless persons.

this provision appears to grant blanket relief to any stateless person who is in the united states even though the date of physical presence is not identified. so in regard to that, i have three questions. and i'll ask them separately. does the administration support this provision? [inaudible conversations] secondly, how many of the 12 million stateless people in the world are going to be eligible? [inaudible conversations] >> senator, it's my understanding that the number that would be eligible each year is shared with other eligible

immigrants, and the cap for that shared group is 10,000. >> okay. given then, last question in this area, given that this provision has serious implications for national security and delegates unlimited power to the secretary, can one of the bill's sponsors describe who would be designated under this section if the bill were to pass as written? >> mr. chairman, there is under the current language in the bill we have strong security measures for refugees and asigh lees. the u.s. citizenship services within dhs has confirmed this. they went through this to make sure there were no exceptions. no exceptions. each applicant for asylum must pass extensive biometric and biographic security checks both law enforcement and intelligence checks are required including the fbi, department of defense,

department of state and other agencies. of so we have added to the security requirements for this category and class of people who might be considered. >> yeah. a follow up to that would be what nationalities would we be referring to? >> well, this becomes difficult, because it is easier to point to the folks who might come into this. as i understand it, we have a young lady in the audience, tatiana -- [inaudible] and i hope i pronounced that correctly. she is a stateless woman from the former soviet union. that's an example where the country that she lived in has virtually disappeared, and she literally has no home, no place to go. she is stateless at this point through no fault of her own. >> okay. can i go on now to refugees? section 3403 allows the president to admit into our

country and grant permanent legal status to an entire classes of aliens that are classified as refugees. currently, refugees undergo specialized and individualized assessment. what does -- why does the bill dramatically expand refugee law in this manner? it seems to imply that the current system in which we bring in over 75,000 people per year isn't adequate. >> well, first, let me say that it does not expand the refugee status, but every single person has to go through the review. be i think what you're referring to is senator lautenberg's offering each year as part of the appropriation process, the so-called lautenberg amendment. and what frank has done, and i think done well, is to say rather than proving up, for example, in every case that going back in history you were a

jew in the soviet union and discriminated against, we are going to accept the premise that jewish people in the soviet union were discriminated against. or a coptic christian in egypt. or a christian or someone who is an evangelical christian in iran today. so instead of saying every single person who comes before the immigration court has to prove up the premise that his class is being discriminated against in a country, we establish that there are certain known examples of discrimination which we can refer to by reference rather than proving up in each case. >> okay. >> as my staff reminded me, still every single person is subject to extensive security checks. i described earlier. >> let me move on to interior enforcement. new -- this would involve new judges, staff attorneys and support staff. and base chi, gets at -- basically, gets at the

proposition we're making these decisions way ahead of time through this legislation and maybe not knowing exactly what's needed right now. so let me -- this is the premise. the bill mandates the hiring of at least 75 immigration court judges over the next three years as well as at least one staff attorney or law clerk and one legal assistant for each immigration judge. in addition, the bill mandates the hiring of at least 30 staff attorneys including the necessary additional support staff for the next three years. so as i indicated, that's a lot of new judges, attorneys and support staff. i note that these are mandatory hirings of new judges, attorneys, etc. the bill provides for no downward discretion with respect to these hirings. the reality is that we don't know whether the immigration court case load will increase or

decrease under this bill, especially with a massive new rpi program. two questions. why is this a mandatory hiring of new judges, etc., and not an authorization for more personnel if circumstances so warrant based on demonstrated needs? and then let me follow it up with a second question. that's the only two questions in this area. shouldn't there be a study to determine the true need for these judges and additional new attorneys, staff, etc., before we start mandating? >> thank you, senator. and let me say that i know you've been sensitive to this when it comes to the article iii court, the case load, and i want you to consider what we are facing now when it comes to the immigration courts. there are currently 259 immigration judges in our country sitting in 58 different immigration court locations. the case loads for each of these judges have increased dramatically over the last

several years. 186,000 cases are pending in immigration courts as of the end of 2008. by 2012 it was up to 326,000 from 186 to 326,000. a 75% increase in just four years. 1200 pending matters the average per immigration judge, 100 cases -- 1200 cases. let me tell you what it comes down to. average processing time for cases in immigration courts nationwide is about four months, 123 days where the individual's detained. and more than three years in cases where the individual's not detained. when we are detaining a person, questioning their status -- and i've been to some of these detention centers -- it costs us over $100 a day as taxpayers to detain them. so if we slow down the court process, we are building up the backlog in detention.

and i might add the reason why we're moving forward on this is we can't realistically say to people we are going to move you through a process that could involve literally millions of people in this country without expanding those who will stand in judgment of some important questions. we'll raise some of those questions today. criminal backgrounds. if i'm applying for the ten-year rpi status, is there something my background which disqualifies me if there's going to have to be a resolution of that. and we want to make sure that that's done on a timely basis, and that's the reason we've done this. >> your answer brings up this: wouldn't -- since we're legalizing so many millions of people under this legislation, wouldn't the case load go down? >> well, if we expand, it's my understanding there may be up 11, 12 million undocumented in this country. i can't tell you how many were here before december 31, 2011, which is the cutoff date, nor

how many will exercise the right that we create under this law to enter into the process. some may say they don't wish to do that or even some return to the country of origin and wait their ten years there. they may think that's a better outcome. so we can't really predict with certainty, but we can say i think with some reliability the numbers involved in this are going to be dramatically increased. oh, i forgot to mention we also have 3500 new border patrol -- [inaudible conversations] and with borderren forcement there'll be more -- enforcement there'll be more removals involved with that as we do a better job at the border. >> those 3500, though, are customs people. >> senator grassley? >> i think your answer -- >> i just wanted to put in a little bit about that. >> >> what i'd d. >> let him finish. >> i'd like to make sure the gang of eight doesn't know we're

asking these questions to stall. i'd like to not have a debate, if we could. >> i'm not debating. >> well, we're -- >> have you finished your questions? >> i'll move on. no, i'm not done yet. >> okay. just for the schedule, as soon as your questions have finished, we will go to leahy amendment 3, that's mrw133332 on violence against women and the authorization for immigrant victims of employment authorization for immigrant victims of domestic violence. so why don't we let senator grassily write those -- grassley write those questions -- >> right to counsel? the bill establishes right to counsel for people here undocumented who are in removal proceedings. the bill requires the attorney general to appoint counsel for unaccompanied minors, any alien

who has any type of mental disability or immigrant that are considered to be particularly vulnerable, particularly vulnerable is language from the bill. not only that, the bill would give attorney general the unreviewable power to appoint counsel to any undocumented immigrant in immigration proceedings at taxpayers' expense even though there is a provision in the bill that funding for this will be appropriateed from the comprehensive immigration trust fund. much of those monies in that trust fund are actually taxpayers' dollars. question: immigration law has always given immigrants a right to obtain counsel but not at taxpayers' expense. why are we giving the attorney general broad and unreviewable power to appoint attorneys for immigrants including dangerous criminal people here illegally

while -- why should the american taxpayers have to foot the bill for lawyers for people here undocumented? >> mr. chairman? i visited one of these detention facilities in southern illinois, and this was a room full of individuals who have not been charged with a crime. they were there while the whole question was being decided as to whether they were in the united states in legal status. and i asked the 40 or 50 men in this room how many of you have an attorney. none of them. had no legal counsel, no representation. now, this amendment -- this bill that we're presenting doesn't change that, nor require us to provide counsel for each of them except we believe that the secretary has the authority now, and we spotlight two specific instances. and i'd like to give you an example or two why we do this. first, we're talking about unaccompanied children. senator franken told a story at a recent hearing about an 8-year-old boy who was told by

an immigration judge that he had the right to cross-examine the government's witness. an 8-year-old boy. and, sadly, those with mental illness in this process many times never understand what they're going through. there was an example of a u.s. citizen, a u.s. citizen with a severe mental illness debolterred from this country -- deported from this country because he didn't understand the fact that he just had to explain he was an american. so we are taking those extreme cases, unaccompanied children and people with serious mental illness, and saying our legal process in this country will give them a chance to have someone explain to them what's going on and to represent them. >> what about the people, though, that don't fall into that extreme case as you just gave us? >> well, there is, we think there's discretion under the law, but we don't go into the specific area. we certainly don't require legal counsel in every case. >> let's go on to the board of immigration appeals. the bill would require the board of appeals to issue written

opinions that would have to address all dispositive arguments raised by the parties. why is it necessary to address all these dispositive arguments raised by the parties even those that have no relevance to the final disposition, isn't this going to burden and prolong the process and create technical, meritless reasons for judicial review? >> mr. chairman, responding to senator grassley, and you have an amendment on this, i believe, amendment 42 that you may offer? >> yeah. >> and it would remove two provisions in the section on board of immigration appeals that apply to appellate body, the appellate body responsible for reviewing immigration court removal proceedings. those are meant to codify best practices. one provision of the bill that you strike with your amendment states that in reviewing immigration court decisions, the board of immigration appeals must issue a written opinion. i think that's the heart of the question that you're asking here. written opinions provide needed

guidance to the immigration courts so they don't have to relitigate these matters over and over and over again. written opinions are less likely to be appealed than affirmatives without opinion because the parties actually understand the basis for the court's decision. it's in writing. requiring written opinions will codify existing good practice. bia affirmances without opinion have decreased from more than 30% in 2004 to about 3% currently. so when they're issuing opinion -- decisions without written opinions, appeals rates to the federal courts rise. so we are taking the burden off the federal courts. we are creating more without a written opinion. >> okay. my last issue is state and local ours -- resources. one of the major issues why immigration is considered here in this committee is a failure of the federal government to enforce existing law. eleven million people have entered this country

undocumented because the federal government dead not stop them from entering -- did not stop them from entering and did not take action to remove. this is not an action. legislative requirements for exit/entry systems were ignored, legislation requiring fencing was not complied with, action to hold employers accountable was not taken, conscious choices were made to take less effective action in stemming the flow and delivered intention was given to the presence of 11 million as the numbers grew. enforcement of laws has been lax, and the result is that states have stepped up to control their own borders. states have become vulnerable against people who are here illegally. their citizens face crime victimization. their budgets are drained as they attempt to provide social services. the states should be able to

enforce federal immigration restrictions more effectively, yet time and again the federal government has denied them the opportunity and tried to stop them. two questions. what in the bill would enable the states to control their own borders when the federal government doesn't? that's a very basic question. seems to me under the tenth amendment, and if the federal government isn't doing its job, the citizens of that state have a right to be protected. >> mr. chairman, responding to senator grassley, i listen to your argument about the failings of our immigration system. it is the most compelling argument for the passage of this legislation i've ever heard. and i know that at the end of the day you are going to seriously consider that possibility, even supporting that possibility as this immigration system is broken down so badly in this country. that's why the eight of us sat

down night after weary night and tried to put this together, so i hope you'll join us in that regard. what you raise is a constitutional question which the courts have been faced with the arizona statutes and others. we don't try to resolve that in this law, we try to create a immigration system that will work. now, we do recognize the very question that you raise, that if our initial comprehensive plan to make the border safe does not achieve that, the states play an even larger role with ample federal resources to get the job done. so we are going to work closely with the governors on the border states as well as other law enforcement officials so we are not ignoring the states' responsibility and, in fact, their vulnerability with the current broken system. we're trying to work with them to solve the problem. >> my colleague -- >> any other questions? >> yeah. one question. does this bill do anything to enhance cooperation between states and the federal government? >> most definitely.

the creation of this commission to work with the federal government for border enforcement and providing a substantial amount of resources, billions of dollars to get this job done, we'll give to those -- we are told, what, nine different crossing sections on the border? six are in pretty strong shape, three need work. you know, we're going to try to -- i think the border's safer than it's ever been in 40 years, but we're going to make it safer and in each instance work with governors and the states to get that job done. >> mr. chairman? >> senator schumer. >> to senator grassley's questions, and they're very valid and important questions, because the american people want security at the border. and we've always felt that, i've always said that one of the watch words of our proposal as the gang of eight that if americans are sure there won't l immigration and that the border is secure, they will be fair and common sense to future legal immigration and the 11 million

living here in the shadows. and i would say this to my colleagues, we're very mindful of that. one of the complaints that the border states have had is that the federal government isn't doing its job, and they're stuck doing it. they'd much prefer to have the federal government do the job. this bill is the most robust attempt of the federal government to do its job at both the boarder and with others who come to this country or stay in this country illegally, exit/entry and e-verify, that we have ever seen. and then as senator durbin mentioned, we have a fail safe. if after five years with more money that has been spent on the border, much more money than has been spent on the border in the past and very good guidelines and everything else, if they don't succeed, the states -- led by state elected officials -- will come in andeir proposal. but i think if you ask the governors of the border states, they would much prefer the federal government step up to the plate and do its job rather than they take over. and that's what we're trying to

do here. but we do have the fail safe of the states being involved with federal dollars if the federal government fails. i don't think the federal government will fail. >> chairman -- >> okay. if we could -- >> mr. chairman, you allowed senator schumer to speak. i would just note that this is not a bill that strengthens border enforcement. i'm reading the letter of may 14th from the immigration customs enforcement council, the i.c.e. officers, and this is what they say. addressing this legislation in four payments: as a result, the legislation before us may have many satisfactory components for powerful lobbying groups and other special interests, but on the subjects of public safety, border security and interior enforcement, this legislation fails. it is a dramatic step in the wrong direction. today the customs and immigration enforcement

association, 12,000 members, just published a statement today saying like the i'd council -- they made reference to this letter -- like the i.c.e. council, the uscis council was not consulted in the crafting of the gang of eight's legislation. instead, the legislation was written with special interests producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better. 744 will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by the lawmakers. >> could i -- >> i don't know who you've been meeting with, but i know these officers were not consulted. they know what it's like in the real world out there. and they've studied the bill, and they say it's not working. and i would just suggest with regard to litigation that this bill has so many opportunities to expand legislation that the number of judges that have been

suggested that needs to be added would not come close, probably, to what's going to be needed. it has the potential to completely gum up the entire system. and, senator durbin, i would ask did you consult with prosecutors and lawyers when you put in words like hardship instead of extreme hardship, when you talked about providing lawyers? and there are many other examples of softening the standards, the clarity of the standards. have you done a study to ascertain how much more litigation you can expect from this from real people? i mean, people who do the work every day. >> mr. chairman? >> yield to senator durbin to answer that, and then we are going to have to go on to the amendment. i know that some senators want be able to speak a lot, they're going to have plenty of chances

to speak on this bill before we get done, but let's do what we're supposed to do and get the amendments. and i'd also note parenthetically as far as consulting, there's been no major piece of legislation that i know of in my years here -- and i've served here longer than anybody else -- where we've had such openness and transparency. every single amendment's been put online before we met. we stream this online so that everybody can see it. we're a nation of over 300 million americans. has every american been consulted? no, but every american can see what's going on. senator durbin, and then i'll give you the list. >> mr. chairman, i'm glad we're going to the amendments, and i think through those amendments which is, i think, a more constructive way for us to move on it. let me just say we did consult with law enforcement when it came to the provisions. and i would also say that even though there's been criticism

leveled against this administration from the union association which you have referred to but also from many people, there have been 1.4 million people deported by this administration. so they have not ignored the law. it is true the president has included daca, for example, and said we are not going to deport those who are eligible for the dream act. so it has been a two-way street in terms of deportations. but i find it very difficult, i'd say to my friend from alabama, it is very difficult to argue that this bill is weak on enforcement. we are literally investing billions of dollars in border enforce bement and a border -- enforcement and a border that has already had a massive investment. it will increase. we are, secondly, going to work with e-verify. there was an employer, a strawn tour in your state, senator flake. after they checked his work

force, you may have talked to this individual, they found 43% of his work force was undocumented, and they fired them on the spot. he lost 750 years of experience of restaurant workers in his businesses. who were dismissed. so the system we're trying to create brings those people forward with they will register. and once registering, they'll be able to work in this country, and we'll know who they are and where they are. that has to make us safer. and think about the exit visas that we're finally going to deal with the source of 40 % of the undocumented people, those who overstay a vis a vis. each of these -- visa. each of those provisions works us into a safer position. we are increasing the standards. >> okay. we will go now to regular order, and we will begin this morning with attempts titled 3, subtitle, b, c, d and e.

the leahy 3 amendment, the amendment from senator grassley, one from senator feinstein, amendment either 6 or 7 from senator hatch, senator klobuchar, senator sessions, senator franken, senator graham, senator kind, senator grassley, senator blumenthal. senator sessions or graham. feinstein or coons and then senator grassley has several. so the first amendment i call up is leahy 3, mrw13332. describe it quickly. it enables immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, other violent crimes to obtain work authorization no later than 180 days after filing a petition or visa. normally right now it's taken about 18 months or more. the problem with taking too long is somebody's being abused, and

they can't go out and get work, the abuser can say, okay, you have to stay here and take this abuse. you and your children are not going to be fed. and they exploit the financial dependents, the victim's way of controlling them. and, of course, the abuse continues. everybody we've talked with in law enforcement says this is an untenable position. and something should be done to make it different. now,ing the work authorization -- if you have a work authorization, you can work. if you don't, the woman being abused may have no money for housing or food, so she has the choice of do i live in a violent home, or do i live on the street? and how does she show a family court that she can provide for the children?

so we have to at least, no matter how we debate on the issue of access to our social safety net, we ought to at least allow people to work and be able to provide for themselves. and i'd note that thissing prior to consulting with people, there are 160 national state and local organizations that work with survivors in the field every day including organizations in every single state represented around here, around this table. and they all support it. so i would hope that we'd have support for that amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> senator grassley. >> i think you have a good amendment here. i have a, two or three short questions i'd like to ask for, to bring out how you expect it to work. first of all, i think it's a general premise that everyone agrees that an immigrant who are battered, assaulted of victimized should not have to rely on their abuser in order to

apply for status, so the concept's right. leading up to my first question, the amendment says that once an immigrant files an application for status as a tu or awa self-petitioner, the secretary shall grant employment authorization either on the date the application is approved or by a date set by the department not later than 180 days after application is filed. so the question, does this mean that if dhs fails to act on the teu or awa petition within 180 days and immigrant -- an immigrant is automatically entitled to work authorization even if the petition later turns out to be fraudulent? >> it is. what we're doing is encouraging, encouraging the bureaucracy to move as quickly as they should be able to in this.

the work authorization, of course, is only temporary, and should they find fraud, it could be immediately withdrawn. but we have not had much evidence of fraud. it's only good for one year. they tell me there's not been evidence of fraud in this area, abused person seeking work authorization. the bureaucracy could handle it within that time and should. this is to put a, as we've done in a number of other areas in here, to put some requirement for the bureaucracy to work quickly. and if it determined there was fraud, then it's immediately withdrawn. >> okay. what -- second question. what happens if after 180 days and after work authorization has been granted the vwa petition is

not approved? >> then they would, then they would lose their work authorization. >> okay. then, and the last question is, and this may not be so easy to answer, but how many immigrants are expect today apply for vwa petition or a u saw or a t visa? >> well, you know, one part of me says i would hope there'd, that it would not be necessary to have any, that all abuse in this country would stop. unfortunately, as we found in our hearings we held on the violence against women act, abuse continues. how many abused people are out there? i don't know the answer to that. i don't think anybody does. certainly, law enforcement doesn't. we wish there were none, but let's be realistic. if you look at some of the horrible, horrible stories of abuse that we've order in our testimony -- that we've heard in our testimony, you know there are always going to be some. i think we cannot close our eyes to them. as i've said oh and over -- over

and over again, a victim is a victim is a victim. and i still have nightmares of some of the crime scenes i went to as a young prosecutor. all those in favor of leahy 3 indicate by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and it is accepted. i thank all the senators, and i thank senator grassley for his encouraging words on that. and i'll yield thousand to senator grassily who -- now to senator grassily who has an amendment. >> okay. this is amendment number 27. yeah, 27, 2-7. >> the asylum. >> our country has been very genero i giving asylum. about 30,000 individuals on average at least over the past

decade. also the united states is becoming increasingly generous in granting asylum. the grant rate for asylum, about 56 president. 56%. this is an increase of 11% in four or five years. increase of 19% in ten years. the grant rate of the asylum office is also going up. the number of persons granted asylum has increased by 31% in just one year, the last year. our commitment to helping people who are persecuted around the world is, it's never going to waver. however, we have to be vigilant. the bill before us makes it aliens to be granted asylum even including those who are denied asylum in the past. the bill would make it easier

for those who wish to do us harm to exploit the system. we learned, for instance, about austin immigrated to the united states based on their parents being granted asylum. my concern is we're not doing enough to reduce fraud, or rather, opening the doors for more abuse. the bill, i'll explain the bill would allow aliens to seek asylum no matter how long they've been in the united states. it would also allow any alien who was denied asylum in the past based on the one-year bar to reopen the case and seek asigh asylum -- asylum. under current law people here illegally generally aren't eligible for asylum if they don't file within one year of their arrival. unless they can show exceptional circumstances or changed country condition.

filing within one year is a very reasonable period, and it helps prevent fraud and meritless application. under current law even if the immigrants don't seek asylum within one year, they can be granted a waiver from an immigration judge. all they have to do is to show that they have extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing within that year. there's also a waiver if there are changed circumstances in their country since they left that warrant, that would warrant the delay in filing. in addition, the big makes it easier for aliens to receive another benefit called protection under the convention against torture by giving asylum officers the power to grant protection currently only immigration judges can grant. protection under the prevention against torture is generally

only granted to aliens who are not eligible for aa sigh lumbar such as -- asylum such as if they created aggravated felonies. aliens who get relief under the convention against torture can remain in the united states even though they have committed serious crimes. this type of protection should only be granted when it is clear that the alien will be tortured if they return to their home country. we should reserve the power then for judges to make that decision. asylum officers' hearing are nonadversarial hearings, and if the asylum office granted the application, there's no review at least if an immigrant judge grants protection under the convention against torture, and the department disagrees, it can appeal to the board of immigration appeals if the asylum office could grant this, there would be no review. the system works well with its

power being limited to immigration judges, and that's the reason for not changing. finally, the bill allows immigrants who were found in the immigration court the to have filed a frivolous -- to have filed a frivolous application for asylum to get legal status under the rpi program. under current law if an immigration judge determines that an immigration filed a frivolous application, then the alien is barred forever from immigration benefits in the united states. this critical provision helps discourage asylum fraud. why should we then allow someone who has tried to game the system by filing fraudulent application to be granted the benefit of legalization and later citizenship? my amendment would prevent those who filed fraudulent applications for asylum from benefiting from rpi. the amendment aims to preserve

the integrity of our asylum process. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. basically, i've only heard good things about the united states and what we do for asylees. and the reputation that we have in this area welcome probably better than -- probably better than, doing more than my other country, and why would we want to weaken that system? and, hence, my amendment. i yield the floor. >> mr. chairman? >> senator from illinois. >> mr. chairman, let me say at the outset i thank the senator for this amendment, and there are parts of it that i want to address separately. first is the one-year bar for asylees, and the second, the frivolous claims. on the one-year bar, there are approximately 40,000 people each year who are granted asylum in the united states. through dhs or the department of

justice. and each of those has to go through an extensive security check. so there is no waiver in our bill of the security requirements that are currently under the law. senator grassley's amendment addresses the one-year bar which says you have one year to file for asylum. it has become a major problem on two levels. first, many people who are eligible for asylum don't realize it. they come to the, they come to the united states, and they are sometimes traumatized by the experiences that they have, and they have a difficult time understanding what our standards and laws may be. let me give you one example from chicago. a young woman comes to the united states from the nation of givenny and africa -- gwynee and africa. at the age of 7, she was subjected to female genital mutilation. she was then at a very early age

promised into a marriage to a man 30 years older than her who had many wives, mistreating them to the point where she fled. she came to the united states, to chicago and didn't realize that what i've just described to you would be grounds for asylum because of this gender discrimination if her background. the second part that i want to raise to my friend from iowa, the immigration judges tell us instead of going to the merits of the to claim, we spend most of our time arguing about whether one year has passed. we are getting travel documentss and assembling all this information to see if we can even start considering the merits of the case. so it ends up being absolute barred to cases which are meritorious where people should be receiving asylum. so we have received -- we have removed that one-year bar, and i would argue that we should keep it removed, because it creates an artificial barrier to people who otherwise would be l -- eligible for the united states to grant asylum.

on the second issue, senator feinstein and i and others just had a brief conversation. with we work together, i'd like to work with you on the frivolous claim aspect of this. i think you make a good point, we agree. let's try to put that provision together, we can, on a bipartisan basis so that if a person is found to have filed a frivolous claim, it will disqualify them from rpi status. the bill, as it's currently written, doesn't say that, but we think working together we can come up with language very close to yours. >> okay. >> mr. chairman? well, first of all, if there's a chance of working, a consensus approach, i think we ought to look at that. so you would want us to withhold our whole amendment or -- >> well, whichever you prefer. i think we could -- however you want to approach it. but i think the one-year bar, eliminating that is very important. the second part we can work on. >> mr. chair? >> senator from california. let me just indicate, we'll

leave it to the proponent of the amendment which to do. if you've got a compromise worked out, then i would urge that that be done quickly. i was just looking at the list of what we have between now and 11:00 tonight. go ahead, senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would have some concern about going from one year to nothing. that doesn't mean that somebody has the rest of their life to figure out an asylum claim. it seemed to me that if you wanted to go from one year to five years or two and a half years, that that's a reasonable period. but to have no limit, i have a problem with that. >> i'm open to that suggestion too. if we can find a reasonable statute, i don't think we call it a statute of limitations, but a reasonable -- >> right. >> where you know, withhold the vote for now, but what -- if i understand senator durbin, so on both parts of my amendment you think we could, we ought to consult? >> let's try to do that. >> okay. >> the amendment is withheld at

no prejudice of the senator from iowa. and the next amendment -- >> mr. chairman, can i just comment on that? >> the amendment is no longer before -- >> well, i know, but -- >> i know the senator wants to talk about a lot of these things, but i wonder if we might -- >> it's very important. >> i wonder if in respect to the senator who has brought the amendment if you might want to wait until he brings the amendment back so we can keep the regular order. we have 30 or 40 amendments to go through, i think we ought to talk about the ones that are actually before us and not some that might come up later on. >> well, mr. chairman, i'll acquiesce in your request. thank you. >> i appreciate that very much, and i actually do. senator hatch is next up. he's not here, but i understand senator schumer's going to offer an amendment for senator hatch, is that correct? >> that is correct. i spoke to senator hatch about an hour ago. he couldn't be here and asked me to offer this. this is called, this is an

amendment to sunset the homecoming act of 1988. .. 1988 homecoming act, a h. a. our department of state to the u.s. embassy in the conflict in vietnam has identified his problems in the program, including security loopholes,

subjective rather than objective adjudication standards, unsustainable resource burdens, and the systematic actual defrauding of the government. under the 1980 to act, applicants must file a form with uscis and the process provides the kind of safeguards that are missing in the other act. we also limit those who can't accompany the principal applicant to immediate relatives. congress to be someone of lying under the 1988 act, therefore, needs to send a letter to the consulate to request consideration. it allows not only relatives that any non-related individuals who come to meet the principal applicant. since 2010, out post in ho chi minh city received 900 applications. to have to be handled by the existing consular staff. at the very least, it ought to have the safeguards that make it issue for the consulate staff to make it safer. anyone eligible under the act

can apply under the 82 act so we're not depriving anybody of the right to be here if they deserve to be so because of the conditions i stated. so i thank senator hatch has a good amendment. the 88 act was drafted to broadly and without enough safeguards, and allowed fraud and risk so i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the out to support the hatch amendment. >> does anybody else wish to speak on this? those in favor of the hatch amendment as offered by senator schumer and advised by senator grassley, a voice vote. acceptable? those in favor signaled -- signify by saying i go? the eyes appear t to have and io have it. the next amendment is the publisr act. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you talked earlier about -- >> my mistake.

it was sent to feinstein who was next. >> of course i will be here. thank you. spent and i thank the senator from california who has reminded me of that. that's the schedule i announced earlier, of course. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, senator klobuchar but i would like to call of amendment number three, feinstein three. and his amendment -- this amendment it would provide 5000 immigrant visas for displaced tibetans from india and nepal over a three-year period. i would like to give you the rationalization for it. conditions inside tibet today remain bleak. th state department finds severe repression in tibet, has documented a litany of abuses against tibetans by chinese

authorities, including a heightened crackdown in response to the more than 110 self-immolation's by young tibetan monks. this amendment is modeled after legislation in 1990 that brought 1000 tibetans to the united states at no cost to the government. under this program, integrating tibetans were supported and integrated into american society by private citizens and church sponsors in 18 cities. as a result of the resettlement program, self-sufficient tibetan american communities exist now in 25 states, and can readily support a new program of tibetan immigrants. the amendment would greatly assist the tibetan community by helping them to preserve their culture and identity. until they can be returned to tibet. it is really a terrible

situation, becoming more and more repressive. it is virtually inexplicable so i hope there will be support for these 5000 visas. >> i will tell the senator from california i stronger supporter on this side. i've been to tibet. i've seen what is happening there. i'm familiar with the displaced tibetans living in india and nepal. am also, i know where they vibrant community of tibetans even in our little state of vermont. they make a valuable contribution in the communities they live in. they had been very valuable parts of our state, but i talk to them about it. as the senator knows, enjoy friendship speed mr. chairman? >> the dalai lama, and i discussed this problem within. we did last you when he spoke at

the middlebury college, we spent a long period of time with them, talking about that. i think give these tibetans who are facing terrible repression, and really inexplicable repression from the chinese, give them a chance to be better life here in the united states. i supported. >> thank you. >> senator grassley had a question. >> i fully support senator feinstein's amendment and would ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor. >> thank you. >> as well as my. senator grassley. >> obviously this can go by voice vote but i do have some questions i would like to have answered. by the way, one of the values of bring up this amendment is that it irritates china all the time. and on this issue undermined irritating china. >> neither do i. >> well, that is not my intent. >> but i must admit they sure

have irritated me. >> and added benefit. >> i've got some stuff here. first of all, -- >> assume all of your things are serious. >> well, i was serious on the first comment i had. here, here's what i would like to have you explained to me. now, we generally have people recently because there any other place to go. it's my understanding that these people have been resettled already at nepal or indeed. so what's the purpose then if they have safety, the resettlement, then why this amendment and opening our doors? been have to follow up questions. >> mrquestions. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the. one of the problems has been that end up all the government has been essentially following chinese mandates to make it very

difficult for the tibetan refugee community. and i have followed this for more than 20 years now, and the last 10 years it has picked up. in india and other places where they are, the filaments are over 50 years old. and one of the things about the tibetan community is it's an entrepreneurial community. these people will become small businessmen, or women, you see tibet shops opening here and there. they have been very good citizens when they come to this country. i think, i've tried since 1991, when i delivered a letter from the dalai lama to the president of china, saying that the dalai lama was not for independence. he was asking for cultural and religious autonomy for tibet. and it's been, i've tried decade after decade after decade, and the response has been a tightening and a repression in

tibet. and a willingness to establish a -- >> i think it satisfied me. and ask one more question? >> if i might just to emphasize, with the senator from california said, do not think of vermont which is, vermont is not a state which traditionally shown a great deal of diversity, racial, ethnic and so on. when the tibetans have come to vermont, have been to reiterate what the senator from california has said, has been absolutely wonderful members of the community, have created businesses, have been productive. it's been a help to our state. they have been able to have a place tov. and when the dalai lama spoke at middlebury last year, the

tremendous outpouring from the state of vermont, including two native vermonters, my wife and my -- myself, was amazing. >> last question, and then one request of you. it's not clear to me if spouses or children, dependence are counted against the 5000 cap hit and could you share your intent on the? and -- >> they are not. >> okay. then lastly, so that we can monitor this situation, i hope you would work with me on some reporting requirements so after the sunset we have a chance to see whether it's a legitimacy for -- >> i would be happy to. i think you will be pleasantly pleased. >> those in favor of the feinstein amendment, cosponsored

by the center of new york and resolve and anyone else who wishes, indicate by saying i go. oppose? the ayes have it have and the ayes do have a. senator sessions, you are recognized -- >> chairman, i would yield to senator graham. what we'll do is we'll do the graham amendment and they will go to the klobuchar and back. we will do the graham and eminem. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is the second a minute. senator durbin, we are talking to senator durbin about our first amendment, is that okay? thank you. >> is the sender bringing up the second -- >> yes. >> without objection the amendment grant to amendment is before us as amended by the

graham second amendment and that is the amendment before us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the reason we are second to bring our second amendment, discussion with the white house last couple days, how to make this thing more effective. basically the entry exit program that we're trying to create deals with 40% of the people here publicly. 40% of people overstayed visas and we don't have a system that can account for that 40%. as we tried to secure our border i think it's very important that we do a better job when it comes to these overstays. and the 19 hijackers of 9/11 i think to in these overstays status. and this is a problem i think national security concern. so what this amendment does would create an integrated database to share with the custom folks, i.c.e. and other stature in the overstays does because which are the information with federal law enforcement, intel and national

security agencies in expanding the group of people that have access to the database to include our federal law enforcement intel and national security agencies. and it also expands the requirement to not only just follow these people and determine whether or not they should have a visa reissued, or they're subject to deportation, but actually to locate and commence removal proceedings based on reasonably available resources. so we're expanding into factions. with a number of people that get information here in these overstays status, federal law enforcement, national security organizations within our government. and we're also adding the requirement that the reasonably available law enforcement resources exist, trying to prioritize, that you located in and commence removal proceedin

proceedings. >> mr. chairman? >> senator from illinois. >> i will support it and i will urge my colleagues to do the same. >> the amendment is before us as modified by the second degree amendment, and those in favor -- >> mr. chairman? >> go ahead. but just so everybody will understand, when we do vote it will be on the amendment as modified by the second degree amendment. senator sessions. >> mr. chairman, this amendment is a step in the right direction, and will support it. i do believe however we should be clear that we do not have under this amendment the kind of i'll metric system that's required by current law at all ports, land, air and sea. we will learn later today with a report that has been held back and not made public that that can easily be at a

reasonable cost, far less than has been said before. but i think this is an amendment that takes us in the right direction. by voting for it i don't suggest that this gets us where we need to be. >> all those in favor of the graham amendment as amended, modified by the second degree amendment, signify by saying aye. oppose? the ayes have it to have it. the ayes do have it, and prior to the bill, said the klobuchar. >> very good. thank you, mr. chairman. earlier today you talked about the importance of new visas but i think we all stand how helpful they are to police and crime fighters when, in fact, some perpetrators actually target immigrants because they know it's difficult for them to come forward and they threatened them with deportation, and that's why we have the visas but the underlying to recognize the importance of you visas by expanding their use but the bill adds child abuse to the current

list of you visas of a crime whh includes domestic violence sexual assault and stalking and all my simple and does is to build on these improvements by adding the crime of elder abuse to the list. every year roughly 2 million cases of elder abuse our reporter across the country, and that the concert after. i would point with a growing number of seniors in this country. we call it the silver tsunami. and effect with a growing number of immigrant elders who are victims. when i was county attorney i started a special unit on elder abuse, and i introduced legislation last week at senator cornyn and i have been working on for a long time about abuse by guardians. and i would hope that we would get strong support for this amendment, supported by 155 groups nationwide. i would ask i add a letter of support from all these groups to the record. >> the letter will be placed in the record. >> and hope we can get this done by voice vote and get this a minute on.

i think it's important. >> i have heard from the same law enforcement this would be a tremendous help. law enforcement. all those in favor -- >> mr. chairman? what would the senator say about the idea of making this kind of a fence one that would deny rbi status or at least be subject to deportation speak with what this is about is exactly extending the u-visa so people cannot be ported. >> you offered an amendment and the other, i guess friday, and that was a different amendment. that didn't relate to elder abuse. they asked me to include this amendment in this grouping of amendments, sender session, or would have done it with the other one. >> well, at any rate, i think there's a concern that we do

have too few violations covered that would deny rbi status and made we can look at that as time goes by. thank you, mr. chairman. >> those in favor of the amendment by senator from minnesota signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes have it to have it. the ayes do have it. our next amendment is senator sessions. >> thank you. mr. chairman, we've not thought clearly -- >> is this number 31? >> thirty-one, yes. earned income tax credit. we've not thought clearly about how to make immigration system work to advance the national interest of the united states. we just have not, and i think the bill before us fails to be as clear in its thinking as it should be in that regard.

one of the subsidies that taxpayers provide to those who immigrate to the country is the earned income tax credit. under current law a person should not be allowed to immigrate to the country if they're going to be a scourge on the government or a burden on the state. every nation, to my knowledge, expects that a person who comes to the country should be able to establish that they will be able to take care of themselves and their family without government assistance. if not, then under our law you really should not be admitted. we found that's not being enforced at all, really. less than two-tenths of 1% of the people who applied to come to the united states are being turned down as a result of their low projected income and week financial ability. that's not good for the immigrant. it's not good for america and it

causes a problem. one of the things we identified a year or two ago was that large numbers of people have become eligible immediately for the earned income tax credit. the average person who qualified for earned income tax credit gets about $2000 a year. that's maybe $170 a month tax free, subsidy of the united states tax code. it's not a tax deduction but it is actually a direct object from the united states government, and it scores and a expenditure, not a tax deduction because it's just a check from the government. but it's done through the irs program. it's one of, perhaps brookings called it the largest poverty program administered through the tax code. eitc agenda of able to anyone who has a social security number, in many abusing that

today. we discovered. but as these rbis are all established, social security number, they will qualify it appears under the law for earned income tax credit. i'm not sure the sponsors understood that because they have insisted that rbi avians will not receive any federal benefit under the bill. but this would grant such a benefit to millions and be a substantial burden on our country's finances at a time where desperately trying to reduce our deficit and find ways to save money. so madam chairman, i guess you are holding the fort. i would urge my colleagues to support this. i believe it's consistent with the idea that those who enter the country illegally but are being given now legal status in the country under this bill that they would not therefore become

eligible for benefit programs. >> thanks, senator sessions. senator schumer? >> thank you, madam chair. and i want to oppose the enemy. first, let's make clear, illegal immigrants are ineligible for eitc under the current law, our legislation does not change that. you're illegal, you don't get eitc. now, what about those who have rpi status? they are paying into the system. they are paying in taxes. they're doing everything like another citizen. and so it's, it's questionable whether they should be excluded from eitc. it's a value choice. senator mccain incidentally a post this in 2006. he said it would impose an indefensible double standard on legalized workers, patently unfair to make them abide by our tax rules, and have to do everything on the thing inside but not just of on the paying outside. but this amendment has a fatal

flaw. it would not only deny rpi eitc, but also those who have a blue card status or are refugees, illegal immigrants who were never in the u.s. in an undocumented way would be included as well but and i'm sure most of my colleagues would agree that we shouldn't deal with that. >> senator schumer, this is already the law, i don't know why you would want to make it clear. it seems to me, quite clear, that under the law that if you have a social security number, then you will be eligible for eitc. so i would think you would be willing to accept that, and i think it's consistent with what you've beetetethe ly that there will be no poverty program benefits under your plan for those of into the country illegally, and we would not be

given legal status helping them to improve their current status so they could work anywhere in the country and taking a job. i would think you'd want to support -- >> let me just reiterate. this goes beyond present law. as i said, illegal underground under present law and under our bill would not be entitled. this gets people are perfectly legal, people who have refugee status, blue card status and agriculture, and i was one of the finger to my colleague, and to all of my colleagues. senator hatch couldn't be here, speaking with them regularly this weekend, has interest in some of these issues and has proposed a nimitz as well. and most of these are finance committee jurisdiction of minutes, finance committee under the chairman's leadership, and senator grassley's leadership and senator hatch's leadership has agreed not to call them. but these are the kinds of issues we will be taking up on the floor. but this amendment on its own goes beyond i think what anybody would want to do because it

deals with people who have never been here illegally and also denies them eitc. >> also, people are primarily -- have children. >> if you become a citizen of course you're entitled to all the benefits that the government just to anybody. and you put each one of these persons who are unlawfully here on a status, bath with the full citizenship, and they will get any benefit at that time for sure and some before that. i just think that it would be contrary to your representation that you would not get poverty program because brookings calls it the largest of the anti-poverty program. really a poverty program, not a tax plan. >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak against this amendment. u.s. citizens should have the

benefit of various services, and the fact is that some 80% of children currently living within a document of parent who, under this bill, many of them would attain rpi status would be denied the benefit of eitc. so we are going to be particularly harming u.s. children of parents have rpi status as one of the major reasons i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] >> the amendment is not agree to. senator franken, you have amendment number eight. >> thank you, mreight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a second degree to this that would fix a typo. typo fixing. >> the sender wishes to amend his a minute to the second degree. been the amendment is amended with a second degree. >> thank you. >> that is now the amendment that is not enforced. >> this is a simple bipartisan amendment that would transfer an important program for -- from hhs to doj where experts think it will find a better home. even though over all levels of undocumented immigration have decrease, the number of children and teens arriving alone at our

borders have doubled. since 2008, the department of health and human services has been charged with securing pro bono lawyers for these children who were often thing gang violence in central america. dhs is also charged with providing child advocates to these children. these are essentially social workers that work to protect the interest and well being of these children. unfortunately, only half of the 14,000 unaccompanied children who arrived in 2012 received representation. this has led to situations where young children have to represent themselves in immigration court to senator durbin told a story from the american bar association about the case of an immigration judge who told an eight year old child, a parent alone in court, that he had the right to cross-examine the government's witness.

additionally, i understand that hhs is overwhelmed with feeding, housing and taking care of these children, and that the child advocate program also is not getting the attention it deserves. so this amendment, which is cosponsored by senator cornyn, simply takes the child counsel program, child council program, and the judge advocate child program and moves them out of hhs and into doj year it transfers to doj all assets and parse the come with the program. it doesn't allocate any additional streams of funding to the program. it just moves it from one place to the other. that is a. it is amended is supported by the american bar association, kids in need of defense, the young center and abroad of other organizations that are expert in children's welfare but i ask that you support -- >> i think it is probably just as well suited to this program,

that those in favor of the franken amendment as amended by the substitute will signify by saying aye. opposed? the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> while we would have gone to senator grassley or senator flake next, understand that you want senator graham to go next. senator graham, you're recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank senator grassley for the accommodation. very helpful to me. i appreciated. this amendment would basically after boston i think we need to look at our asylum and refugee programs. and what it says is that if you return to the country where you sought asylum from, claiming your persecuted without good cause, you can lose your status. ..

>> should we amend it by your second degree, sir? >> i would appreciate that. >> then without objection, the graham amendment is amended by his second-degree amendment, and that is the amendment we now have before us. >> and the burden is upon the alien. waivers may be obtained either before or after travel abroad, and the cuban adjustment act, those refugees are exempt from this requirement. i think it's a good, common sense let's look at why people go back to the question in to

have a good reason fine, but it does allow some scrutiny and ask some questions for some questions that need to be asked. >> would the senator yield for a question? does this require -- terminate or just allow the secretary to on its own initiative somehow limit the reentry? >> right. it requires it, and it can be waived if there's good cause. if you're going back for a funeral or some other event that i think we can all relate to, the requirement to lose your us is waived. >> so but -- >> and the burden's on you to prove that there was good cause. >> it is, when you go back, your status is terminated, and you have to reapply, essentially? >> yes. you can do it before or after your travel, and you have to, basically, prove good cause. >> as we know the boston situation, the father brought the children here and immediately returned claiming that he was under threats of his own safety. obviously, he budget.

he returned right -- he wasn't. he returned right back. so i think this is a good amendment. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> senator from illinois. >> i'd like, if i might, ask the sponsor of the amendment a few questions so that we understand -- >> sure. >> -- critical phrase, good cause. examples that have been used, someone risks returning to their home country even though they are an asylee because of fear or a refugee because of fear as well, risks returning to their home country to attend the funeral of a loved one. >> that'd be a good cause. >> or if they need to come back to recover documents or property left behind, would that also be considered? >> well, this is decisions to be made by, i don't think you can legislate every good cause, but the point is to make sure there's a good reason and have the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general make this decision. >> so if, let me give you another example. and so i want to make a record of it before i -- >> sure. >> -- say what i'm about to say.

assume you're an evangelical christian in the iran and being discriminated against. you're here in the united states as an asylee. the iranian regime changes, which we're all praying for, and becomes more tolerant and works with our country. returning then to iran would be considered a good cause situation? >> i don't know if you would be allowed asylum if the reason for you leaving no longer exists. >> well, some people have made a life here in the united states at that point, and the question -- >> i think, i think two things would have to happen. that the asylum status is granted because the iranian regime is persecuting almost everybody it doesn't agree with, including evangelical christians. if for some reason the underlying persecution went away, i don't think that's a good cause situation as to whether or not you're entitled to that category. because the country may have changed its behavior. but if you went back to iran,

like you say, for a parent or some other reason, that's when it would be a good cause analysis would take place. >> well, i might say to my friend from south carolina, there is anxiety within the community about what this means. because some of the examples i've given you are routine and, in fact, people are risking their own safety to go back for compelling situations which i think would fit in the good cause standard. >> when we talked to the administration about a standard, they thought good cause would be the best way to describe what we're doing, and adding the attorney general as another person that could waive it made sense in some circumstance. >> could i -- i just want to express concern here. i think that we may be micromanaging. i know dhs scrutinizes the travel anyway. what happens if you go back to regain custody of a child, what happens if you go back to get important documents that may

reflect anything from property to child custody. i, i'm afraid that this is micro-- i don't know if this is the intelligent, i don't think it is the intent, but i think the practical effect of it is going to create problems where -- >> well, if you go back to make a bomb, learn to make a bomb is what i'm worried about. >> yeah, but i'm afraid, but there they have the authority to cut it off. and i'm afraid what we do in micromanaging this, we undercut the kind of discretion that we'd like to have because there is no way we can sit here as a committee and be able to tell exactly every single, what every single issue is. we see refugees moving from from area to area, we've seen the conflict in syria.

the senator from illinois has mentioned the situation in iran and others. i understand the concern of the senator, but i'm going to, i'm going to have to oppose this amendment, obviously, i speak already -- >> and if i could, mr. chairman, just to wrap up what i'm trying to do, the people who make the waiver determination would be the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general of the united states. and i'm not trying to micromanage their decision, but i am trying to tell those who come here from -- to avoid persecution that we're a welcoming nation. but in light of the world as it is, particularly boston, i think it would be very smart for us to inquire as to why you're going back to the place you're persecuted from. usually if you're coming here from a place involving persecution, they're not normally aligned with our interests and sometimes, quite

frankly, are enemies of the nation. of our nation. so i just think given what happened in boston if you're going back to a funeral of a parent or, as senator durbin said, that would certainly be good cause. but if you're going back and we don't know what you did and you come back here and a pom goes off -- a bomb goes off, i think we need to look long and hard about this status to make sure it's being given to people who deserve it. and if you go back to the place you've been persecuted from, we should have a conversation of what makes you go back. >> well, when secretary napolitano testified before, she said there was nothing in the underlying bill that would undermine national security, and i emphasize the word "nothing." i think this, i think the amendment the senator has made improves what it was, but i am, i cannot and will not support it. but do you wish a roll call?

>> i -- >> voice votesome. >> voice vote would be fine. >> all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed signify by saying no. >> no. >> no the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like the call up my amendment, coons 5. this amendment will streamline the process by which immigrants receive the most relevant documents pertaining to their proceedings in immigration court. immigrants are already entitled to these documents under a decision, holder v. dent, in the ninth circuit. these documents are roughly refer today as their a file. but under current practice, they have to file a freedom of information act or foia request to get the documents. there have been over,0la fiscal. dhs currently employs roughly 200 people full time to respond to these requests at a cost of

over 13 million a year, and strikingly in 2011, less than 1% of these requests were rejected suggesting the formality is a waste of time and resources. meanwhile, this delays proceedings to a later date often while a person waits in detention at taxpayer defense. this amendment will u thus, i believe, save time and expense. the scope of information habanerod. it is no -- has been narrowed, it is limited to documents in, the hs possession and, thus, will not obligation dhs to disclose anything either beyond their holdings or anything that is privileged or classified. in short, i believe this amendment will fix one of the many broken elements of and rede 100,000 needless foia applications a year, and i urge my colleagues to support it. >> i think it's going to make our immigration courts function more efficiently, something

we've all said we want as well as fairness. and i agree, i agree with the senator from delaware. >> mr. chairman, i'm very concerned about this amendment. i think it has ramifications of great significance. we deport hundreds of thousands -- millions of people at our borders. is this saying that someone has entered the country you've got to stop the deportation process until every document is gathered and presided? i mean, the person really has no defense to the fact they're in the country illegally, and we do this routinely on a daily basis. they're ap rehelped and often -- apprehended and often without a court hearing, sometimes with a court hearing tear deported. so would -- they're deported. so would it include even people who have been ap rehedgedded for a short time in the united

states? >> it would not. this only applies to deportation proceedings. so the significant number of folks who are apprehended and returned without any court hearing, without appearing in front of a judge who are not in detention, this would not apply. this would apply to immigration -- >> having been a federal prosecutor for almost 15 years, and you have a large number of individuals involved in violation of the law, and you have to handle that in a systematic way, i just believe that this would give a guarantee to almost any person being debolterred that they could -- deported that they could slow the system down and make some official certify that every document has been produced. and it's hard to do that. maybe you've got to stop the whole procedure and run all kinds of checks to determine if you've got every single document. i know the brady material,

exculpatory material that's in routine cases, officers spend a lot of time trying to when they make that certification if there's nothing in the file, they have to be sure it's accurate because they can be disciplined if not. >> i understand the senator's concern. these are documents which dhs is already obligated to provide under a ninth circuit decision, holder very dent. and it is limited to the so of called a file. and so the application of brady, the search for brady documents, for example, in a criminal proceeding isn't exactly relevant here. this amendment has been crafted so that it is limited to documents that are, that would, frankly, be in the jacket of the case that would be in the possession of the dhs representative as they were going to a deportation hearing. so it doesn't require a sort of searching review beyond the scope of a relatively narrowly-defined class of documents. what it simply does is reduce

the burden of having to file a formal foia proceeding and then wait for the response and then wait for the documents back. but i can tell my good colleague may not be persuaded by my -- >> i'm just worried about it, frankly, because there's a lot of things in this legislation that's going to cause a great amount of litigation. the standard, extreme hardship, has been reconstitutioned to hardship. -- reduced to hardship. hardship can mean almost anything. this means a person subject to deportation's lawyer has basis to a trial who knows what might happen. with regard to your amendment, i just believe that facts, a situation in which the facts are chris call clear -- crystal clear the defendant is in violation of our immigration laws, they know and everybody knows they're due to be deported, the visa is plainly expired. you get to court and you're ready to go, and some document isn't in the file. now the lawyer holds, put on a

hold on it and demands that the document -- that case has got to be taken off the docket, somebody's going out to find this document that has really no value to the substance of the situation. but because they're valuable -- becomes very valuable in delaying and frustrating the normal operating process. >> senator? >> i wallet to propose that you may have answered, i'm afraid your attempts to answer the questions i've raised are not sufficient and, therefore, i would oppose the amendment. >> senator whitehouse? >> mr. chairman, if i could ask my colleague, at what point the obligations of his amendment are triggered. when does the obligation to provide these documents arise, and is it one that confers rights on the individual that they could go to court and assert a violation of some kind if today weren't provided?

or is it more just a way of organizing the administration of this? does it create a right of action on the part of the individual, and when does it arise if is. >> the language of the amendment states, this is under b, the alien shall at the beginning of the proceedings or at a reasonable time thereafter automatically receive a complete copy of all relevant documents in the possession of the department of homeland security including all documents, and then it exempts protected by privilege, national security information, law enforcement information contained in the file maintained by the government that includes information with respect to all transactions by the alien commonly referred to as an a file. so your question, the answer would be at the beginning of the proceedings or at a reasonable time thereafter. >> what does that mean, at the beginning of the proceedings? >> well, to the point raised by the senator from alabama, you would have to be in removal proceedings in order for this to

apply. there is a significant number of immigrants who are detained and deported without a formal deportation proceeding, so this would not apply to them. >> okay. it's not very clear to me what the beginning of proceedings are. do you mean the beginning of formal proceedings in the immigration courtroom? or do you mean -- i'm not familiar enough with immigration law to know what kicks off the immigration proceedings. is there the e give element of a criminal -- equivalent of a criminal complaint that would have to be attached to that complaint as part of the original filing because that's the beginning? >> those -- oh. >> and does it create a private right of action. >> my attorneys assert, no. [laughter] >> those -- >> mr. chairman? >> senator from california and -- >> well, mr. chairman, i think this is a good amendment. it's my understanding, also, that the ninth circuit has held,

and it's a very conservative judge, andrew cline fed, who has heard over 1200 immigration appeals, that an individual is entitled to this, essentially. and an existing statute says the alien shall have access to the visa or other entry department if any, and any other records and documents not considered by the attorney general to be confidential pertaining to the alien's admission or presence in the united states. so this, essentially, as i understand what senator coons is trying to do, affects anything not confidential so that the alien can have whatever information there is that is not confidential. >> and in response to concerns raided by secretary napolitano -- raised by secretary napolitano at a hearing i believe in april, it is limited to those documents in dhs's physical possession. >> exactly. >> they don't have to go searching for files that might have existed in some other agency at some time.

>> thank you. >> i think the amendment does make immigration courts function more more efficiently. >> i think this would probably apply to the operation streamline cases that come up and people have a hearing and are debolterred with some -- debolterred with some penalty. you could have a clear situation where somebody entered arizona and left and was deported and now reentered in texas, and the case is open and shut. he has no legal basis to be in the country, but the lawyer now can file this amendment, and according to your language it would require that the removal proceedis ee physical they've received all these documents. i think it's unnecessary fundamentally, deportation not a criminal case. if a criminal case, you could also have reciprocal discovery on behalf of the defendant.

but this is deportation. so all the burden's on the government and not on the depor tee. >> those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> ayes appear to have it, and the ayes do have it. our next amendment, senator flake, you are recognized. i understand you want to bring up an amendment for senator hatch? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. i call it the hatch amendment number 6 on behalf of senator hatch. as we know, he can't be with us this morning. the underlying legislation implies a visa -- if the senator would just hold a moment, is this going to be second-degreed in. >> yes. >> and do you wish to call it the second-degree amendment? >> yes. that's correct. the second degree simply insures that the report from dhs is more timely. >> then without objection, the

amendment before us is as amended, the hatch 6 as amended by the schumer second-degree amendment, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> that's what we'll have before us, and i interrupted you. i just wanted to make sure -- senator flake and senator schumer. >> thank you. as we know, the underlying legislation creates a biographic system, entry and exit system -- or exit system that operates by collecting machine-readable visa and passport information at air and seaports. and this has to be in use before the rpi immigrants adjust their status. as such, the bill incentivizes and makes incremental progress toward the actual implementation of an exit system that will increase our security. as we discussed previously in the markup, the department of homeland security has had difficulty implementing a biometric system. this, this will simply build on the provisions of the underlying bill.

the hatch amendment tackles the problem by employing a biometric exit system progressively and systematically. it first establishes an exit system in the ten busiest international airports within two years after the date of enactment, and then it requires the dhs secretary to report on the effectiveness of the system, then establishes a mandatory biometric system to 20 more international airports within six years. the amendment also paves the way for the biometric exit system to be implemented at both land and sea bolters. by doing it gradually, it will not only save money, but will improve the system and benefit from increased security. this is an agreement from both sides of the aisle. there is an agreement that we need to build toward a biometric visa exit system. you know, implementing this biometric system is long overdue, and the hatch amendment will simply bring it on faster and do it in a way that gives us the information we need, improves security along the way,

but makes sure we actually can do it. and i ask my colleagues for their support of the amendment. >> mr. chairman? first, i want to thank senator hatch, senator flake for offering this amendment. i think it's a very good and responsible proposal. and it mandates, as senator flake said, biometric exit program in our largest airports. it's a good start. and once we see how the program works, we can scale it -- [inaudible] second degree is very simple. it's, it would simply require dhs to submit a report to congress that analyzes the effectiveness of the biometric data collection at the ten airports and clarifies like we're trying to do with everything in this amendment that the cost will be funded with the trust fund monies. it will not cost the taxpayers a single nickel. it's a good proposal, i compliment senator hatch on offering it. again, as we all said, we love to move to a biometric, but

we've got to make sure it works and can't hold up everything until it does was it's take -- because it's taken a while. this is a good start, and i think it's a good amendment. i hope it'll get good, bipartisan support. >> senator grassley wishes to speak and senator feinstein. >> i do. >> [inaudible] >> i'll defer to the powerful ranking member. >> i'll defer to the -- >> mr. chairman, this is a good amendment. and it really shows the people have listened to the discussion here and come forward with what i think is a very positive compromise. and in my view, the biometric field is the field of the future, and i think the most important place, senator flake, this makes it possible. and i want to thank you, and i want to thank senator hatch for his action in this regard. >> could i just ask a couple of

questions. is there any way this might be applied to u.s. citizens traveling outside the united states? >> chairman? >> yes. >> it's a very apropos question. it would not apply to any u.s. citizens. so any worry that u.s. citizens would be fingerprinted or anything else, not under the purview of this amendment, that's for sure. >> and could we see this would lead to the fingerprinting eventually of people, say, crossing our u.s./canadian border, some who do this sometimes -- >> certainly -- >> -- dozens of times a week? >> certainly, they would have to come back to congress, and the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and get it through his committee before that could ever happen. >> thank you. senator -- >> senator grassley, did you wish to -- senator sessions. >> we talked a good bit about in

this because so important, colleagues. and i'd like to share with you a couple fundamental things i believe the facts show. number one, we fingerprint people before they come into the country. that's in the system. the entry system works. it's the simple we don't read it when they exit the country, and that's the hole in the system. now, senator hatch's amendment makes some progress, but as i will show to you now, i think pretty conclusively, there is no reason at all to be this long about this process, and that the entire system as current law requires should be implemented at land, sea and airports. we can do this. it's what the whole system has been designed for. and it's a retreat from current law, a weakening of current law even with the hatch amendment. and i would just note we just had an amendment on hearings on

deportation. that weakens current law. we just had an amendment that said an asylee who comes to the country doesn't have to tell the world he's oppressed or deserves asylum for over a year. now they can be any len of time -- length of time. another weakening of current law. and step after step after step in this legislation that weakens current law. now, i did not know until friday that there has been a clear report on in this. on this. 2009, a report that was made on how the exit system works biometrically with fingerprints. i went, apparently, to the appropriations committee, and nobody knew about it. i didn't know it til friday. >> the senator -- >> and i've got some things i want to share about what it says. [inaudible conversations] mr. chairman, it says the pilot programs confirm the ability to

biometrically record the exit of ail yeps -- aliens subject to u.s. visit departing by air. it dealt with the air departing. it goes on to say that it had very little impact on the, this is the finding. overall the air exit pilot programs confirm the ability to biometrically record the exit of aliens subject to u.s. visit departing the united states by air. closed quote. goes on to say the cbp pilot produced -- friends, listen to me on this line. i didn't know this was in the report. maybe that's why it never was made public. the cbp pilot process 9,448 aliens subject to u.s. visit and identified 44 watch list hits.

44 watch list hits. and 60 suspected overstays. the tsa pilot program, i think that's the one in atlanta, senator schumer, you referred to yesterday as being a failure, last week, the tsa -- i'm quoting now -- the tsa pilot processed 20,296 aliens subject to u.s. visit and identified 131 watch list hits. so i would say, first of all, they go on and talk at some length about how simple it is. it's not a complicated system. they use portable fingerprint readers. in other words, you come out of the airplane, you're exiting the terminal. you don't need a big, big area. only international flights would

be affected. you put your fingerprint on a machine, it reads them instantly, and you know whether or not this person is on a hit list, a watch list or has got a warrant out for their arrest before they depart the country. maybe they had after they entered the country. this is done every day in america. most people don't know that many police departments have fingerprint reading machines in their cars. and when a person is arrested and they have any suspicion, normally they ask them to check their fingerprints, and they do so. and that's how most fugitives are discovered. they don't -- we don't go out with mass numbers hunting down