today the 12,000 members of just published a statement today saying yet like the i.c.e. counsel it was not consulted in

the crafting of gang of 8 legislation. it was written with special interest producing a bill that makes a 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 so you have been meeting with. i know, the awmpszs are not consulted. they know what it's like in the real world out there. they study the bill and say it's not working. and i would just suggest with regard to litigation that this bill has so many opportunities to expand legislation the numbers of judges that have been suggested that needs to be added would not come close to what is going to be needed. and senator, durbin, i would

ask, did you consult with prosecutors and lawyers when you put in words, like, "hardship" instead of "extreme hardship ." you talk about providing lawyers an there are many examples of softening 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, you -- and then we are going to have to go on to the amendment. i know, the senators want to be able to speak a lot. they are going to have a plenty of chances to speak on the bill before we get done. but lets do what we are pose -- supposed to do and get the amendments out. also i would note paraphernalia threatically prior -- there is

no major piece of legislation that i know in my years here where we had such openness and transparency every single amendment has been put online before we met we extreme this online so everybody can see it. we are a nation of over 300 million americans have. has ever one be consulted,? no. they can watch. >> i think it's a more constructive way to move. let me say we did consult with law enforcement when it came to the provisions, and i would say that even there's criticism leveled against the administration from the union or association which you have referred to, but also from many people. there have been 1.4 million people deported by this

administration. they have not ignored the law. it's true that the president has included -- for example, and said we're not going it deport those eligible for the dream act. it's within a two-way street in term of deportation. i find it difficult, i say to my friend from alabama, it's difficult to argue that this bill is weak on enforcement. we are literally investing billions of dollars in border enforcement on a border that already had a massive investment. it will increase. we are, secondly, going to create e verify. i met with the national restaurant association in the convention in chicago. there was a employer, a restaurant tour, in your state, senator flake. after they checked his work force, they found 43% of the work force was undocumented and fired him 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 the people forward where they will register. once registering they'll be able to work in the country and we'll know where they are and where they are. that has to makes safer. think about the exit have visa we are finally going deal with the source of 40% of the undocumented people. those who overstay a visa. each of these provisions moves us in to a safer mode and more secure position. so to argue from a law enforcement viewpoint that we are weakening the standards by several major leaps, we are increasing. >> okay. we will go to regular order. we'll begin title iii subtitle b, c, e. leahy three amendment with senator grassley. amendment either six or seven from senator hatch, senator klobchar, senator coons, senator

yays grassley, senator bloomen that, or sessions. grassley has several. the first eajt to call up -- amendment to call up is leahy iii. they describe it quickly enable 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. renouncing about 18 months or so more. the problem with taking too long, somebody being abused and they can't get work, the abuser can say, okay, you're going to have to stay here and take the abuse, or you and your children are not going to be fed.

and they exploit the financial dependence of the victims of the way of controlling them. and of course the abuse continues. everybody we've talked to in law enforcement said this is untenable position. and one thing will be done to make it different. they have the work authorization. you can work. if you don't, the woman being abused may have no money for a housing united, so she has a choice do i leave -- live in aconvenient hem or on the street. how does she show a family court she can provide for the children? so we ought at least be able to allow people to work and provide for themselves. and i note that this is prior to

consulting with people there are 160 national, state, and local organizations work with survivors in the field every day including organizations and every single state represented around here around this table. and they all support it. i hope they would have support for the amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> senator grassley. >> i think you have a good amendment here. i have two or three short questions i would like to ask for to bring out how you expect to work. first of all, i think it's a general premise that everyone agrees that immigrant or battered assaulted victim, i should not have to rely on the abuser in order to apply for status. the concept is right. leading up to my first question, the amendment said that once an immigrant files an application for status as a self-petitioner,

the secretary shell, grant, employment authorization either on the date they the application is approved, or by a date set by the department not later than 180 dais after application is filed. so the question, does this mean that if dhs fails to act on the tu or petition within 180 days and an immigrant is automatically entitled to work authorization even if the petition turns out to be fraudulent? >> it is -- what we're doing is encouraging them the bureaucracy to move as quickly as they should be able to in this. the work authorization, of course, is only temporary should they find it can be peedly withdrawn.

we haven't had much evidence. it's only good for one year. there's not evidence of fraud in this area, abuse person seeking work authorization. the bureaucracy can handle it within that time, and should. this is to put as we have done in a number of other areas in here to put some requirement for the burke to work quickly. and if it determined it was immediately withdrawn. >> okay. second question, what happens if after 180 days and work authorization has been granted the petition is not approved? >> thoan they would -- then they lose the work authorization. >> okay. then in the last question, this may not be easy to answer. how many immigrants are expected to expected to apply for the

petition, or visa? >> one part of me would say i would hope there would not necessary to have. all abuse in the country would stop. unfortunately we found in the hearings we held on 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. law enforcement doesn't. we wish there was none. let's be realistic, if you look at some of the horror, horrible stories of abuse that we've heard in our testimony, you know there are always going some. i think question now close our eyes -- cannot close to our eyes to it, as i said over and over and over again, a victim, is a victim, is a victim. i still have nightmare as the crime scenes i went to as a young prosecutor. if terrorist -- there's no further debate all those in

favor indicate by saying aye. oppose? >> the aye have it. s if -- i thank all the senators, i thank senator senator grassley for his encouraging words on that. he has an amendment. >> okay. this is amendment number 27. yeah. 127. 2-7. our country has been generous in giving assign limb. about 30,000 individuals on average. over at least over the past decade. also the united states is becoming increasingly generous in granting asylum. the grant rate for asylum about

56%. this is an increase in 11% in four or five years. increase of 19% in ten years. the grant rate of the asigh loom office is going up. the number of person granted asylum is granted 31% in the last year. our commitment to helping people persecuted around the world is is never going waiver; however, we have to be vigilant. the bill before us makes it easier for ail yents to be granted asylum including those 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 boston immigranted to the united states based on their parents being granted asylum.

my concern is that 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 have been in the united states. it would allow any alien denied asylum in the past based on the one-year bar to reopen the case and seek asylum. under current law people here illegally generally aren't allowed asylum if they don't file one year within the arrival unless they can show exceptional circumstance or changed country condition filing within one year is a reasonable period. and helps to prevent fraud and meritless application. under current law, even if the immigrant 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 in that year. there is a waiver if there are changed circumstance in the country since they left that warrant that would warrant the delay in filing. in addition the bill 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 convention against torture is generally only granted to aliens not eligible for asylum such as they if they committed aggrated felonies.

those whoa get relief can remain in the united states even though they committed serious crime. this type ofprotection should only be granted when it's clear that the alien will be tourtured they return to their home country. we should reserve the power for judges to make that decision. asylum officers hearing are nonadversaryial hearings, if the asylum office grants the application, there's no review, at least, if an immigrant judge grants protection under the con sense against torture. they can appeal to the board of immigration appeal if the asylum office could grant it. there would be no review. a system works well with this power being limited to immigration judges, and that's a reason for not changing. finally, the bill allows immigrants who were found in the immigration court 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 immigrant 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 trying to basement system by filing fraudulent application to be granted the benefit of legalization and later citizenship. my amendment would prevent those filed fraudulent applications 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 have only heard good things about the united states and what we do for acais.

and the realation we have in this area. probablt than doing more than any other country. and why would we want to weaken that system and hence my amendment? i yield the floor. >> mr. chairman? [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, let me say at the outset. i thank the senator for this amendment. and there are parts that i want to address separately. first is the one-year bar for asylum and the second is 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's no waiver in our bill of the security environments 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's become a major problem on two levels. first, many people who are eligible for asylum don't realize it. 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 of laws may be. let me give you one example from chicago: a young woman comes to the united states from the africa. at the age of 7, she was subjected to female jen till mutilation. she was promised in to marriage to a man thirty years older than 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 just described to you

would be grounds for asylum because the gender discrimination in her background. the second part i wanted to raise to my friend from iowa, the immigration tell us insed of going to the merit we spent most of the time arguing whether one-year passed. it ends up being bar to cases which are people should be receiving asylum. we have removed that one-year bar. and i would argue that beshould keep it removed. because it creates an artificial barrier to people who otherwise would be eligible for the united states to grant asylum. on the second issue, senator feinstein and i and others had a brief conversation. with we work together. i would like to work on the frivolous claim aspect. i think you make a good point. we agree.

let's try to put it together if we can on a bipartisan basis. if person is found filed a frivolous came it will disqualify them from rpi status. the bill as currently written doesn't say that. we think that working together we can come up with language close to yours. >> okay. >> first of all, if there's a chance of working a consensus approach, i think we ought to look at that. you would want us to withhold our whole amendment? >> well, whichever you prefer. however you want to approach. it i think the one-year bar limiting that is important. the second part we can work on on. >> the senator from california, let me indicate. we'll leave it 0 the proponent of the amendment. you have got to a comprise to work out. i would urge that be done quickly. just to get the list behalf we have between now and 11:00

tonight. go ahead, senator fine sign. >> thank you. i would have concern from going from one year to nothing. that doesn't mean that something has the rest of their life to figure out an asylum claim. it seems to me if you want to go from one year to five years or two and a half years. that's a reasonable period. to have no limit, i have a problem with that. >> i'm open that suggestion too. >> if we can find a reasonable statute. but a reasonable -- [inaudible] >> we'll hold the vote now. if i understand senator durbin. on both part of my amendment, you think we ought to consult. >> the amendment is withheld. and the next amendment -- . >> mr. chairman, i can comment on that. >> the amendment is no longer -- [inaudible conversations] >> i know the senator wants to

talk about -- . >> very important. >> i wonder if in respect of the senator who is brought the amendment, if he might want to wait until he brings the amendment back so we can give direct order. we have thirty or forty amendments to go through. i think we ought to talk about the ones actually before us and not some that might come up later on. >> well, mr. chairman, ak whens . >> i appreciate that very much. i actually do. senator hatch is next up. he's not here. i understand senator schumer is going to offer an amendment before senator hatch. is that correct? >> that is correct. i spoke to him about an hour ago. he couldn't be here and asked me to offer it. it's an teement sunset the act of 1988. it's senator hatch's amendments. he can't be with us here. let me give you some background

on senator hatch's behalf. supportive of the amendment. why he feels the act should be sunsetted. children born to u.s. service men, fathers, and vietnamese mothers are currently able to immigrant to the u.s. under two programs, 1982 act, aia. and the 1988 home combing act aha. our department of state, through the u.s. embassy and consulate in vietnam have identified serious problem in the aha program including security loophole, subjective rather than on juctive adjudication. unsustainable resource burdens and somatic defraud of the government under the 19 23eu8 aced they must file a form it

limits those who can accompany the prince conversely someone applying under the 1988 act needs to to request consideration. it allows not only relative but any nonrelated individual to accompany them. since 2010, our post in ho chi minh city received 900 new they have to be handled by the existing staff. at the least we ought to have the safe guard to make it safer for the staff and safer anyone eligible under the act can apply under the '82 act. we are not depriving anybody of their right to be here if they deserve to be so. i think senator hatch has a good amendment. the '88 act was drafted too broadly without enough safe

ds, and allowed fraud and risk. i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the hatch amendment. >> anybody else wish to speak on this? in favor of the hatch amendment is offered by senator schumer, i've been advised by senator grassley. it's acceptable. those signify by saying aye. opposed? the aye appear to have it. the aye have it. the next amendment is the klobchar ii. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you talked earlier today -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry it was senator feinstein next. >> of course. i will be here. >> thank you. >> and i thangt senator -- thank the senator from california who is reminded me of that.

s that was the schedule now. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, senator klobchar. i would like like to call -- this amendment members would provide 5,000 immigrant visa for displaced from india and nepal over a three-year period. i would like to give you the rationization for it. conditions inside it today remain bleak. the state department finds severe depression. documented a lit any of buseses by chinese authority including a heightened crackdown in response to more than 110 self-imlation by young monks. this amendment is modeled after

legislation in 1990 that 1,000 of them to the united states to no cost to the government. under the program immigranting people were supported and integrated to american society by private service and church sponsors in eighteen cities. as a result of the resettlement program self-sufficient communities exist now in 25 states and can readily support a new program of the immigrants. the amendment would greatly assist the community by helping them to preserve their culture and identity until it can be returned. it's really a terrible situation becoming more and more repressive. it's virtually inexpoliceble. i hope there will be support for the 5,000. >> senator the california.

i've been there. i've seen what is happening there. i'm familiar with the plight of the displaced living in india and nepal, also. i know, we have a vibrant community in vermont. they made valuable contributions to communities they live in. they have very valuable part of our state. i talked with them about it, as the senator knows, like -- [inaudible] . >> mr. chairman -- . >> and i discuss this problem with him. ..

obviously does thank by voice vote but i do have some questions i would like to have answered. by the way one of the values of bringing up is it irritates china all the time and on this issue i don't mind irritating china. >> that was not my intent. >> i know it. >> it's an added and the fit. >> i have some stuff here. first of all -- >> i was serious on the first

comment. >> here, here's what i would like to have you explained to me. now we generally have people resettle here because they don't have anyplace else to go. it's my understanding that these people have been resettled already and nepal or india so what is the purpose then if they have safety and they have resettlement? why this amendment and opening our doors and i have to follow up questions. >> mr. chairman i appreciate the comment. one of the problems has been that in nepal the government has been essentially following chinese mandates to make it very difficult for the tibetan refugees and i have followed this for more than 20 years now. in the last 10 years it has picked up. in india and other places where they are the settlements 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 and women. you see tibet shops opening here and there and they have been very good citizens when they come to this country. i have 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 i have tried decade after decade after decade and the response has been a tightening and a repression in tibet. a willingness to established day on population there. >> i think you have satisfied me. can i ask one more question? >> if i might just to emphasize

what the senator from california said. he did not think of -- it is not a state in which traditionally has shown a great deal of -- when the tibetans have come to vermont and to reiterate what the senator from california said, they have been absolutely wonderful members of the community and have created business is and they have been printed if. it has been a help to our state. they have been able to have a safe place to live. when the dalai lama spoke last year, the tremendous outpouring from the state of vermont including two native vermonters, my wife and myself for him and for tibet was amazing.

>> the last question and then one request of you. it's not clear to me as spouses or children or dependents are countered against the 5000 cap and could you share your intent on that? >> they are not. >> okay and 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 legitimate. >> i would be happy to. i think you'll be pleasantly pleased. >> those in favor of the amendment cosponsored by the senator from new york and myself and anyone who wishes to indicate by saying aye. opposed. the ayes to have it in senator sessions you are recognized.

>> mr. chairman senator graham is that okay with you? see what we will do is we will do the graham amendment now and then go to the klobuchar amendment and we will do the graham amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is the 2nd amendment and we were talking to senator durbin about our first amendment. is that okay? thank you. >> did the senator bring up the second degree? >> yeah. >> without objection the amendment that graham two amendment as amended by the graham second degree amendment and that is the amendment before us. >> thank you mr. chairman and we had a discussion with the white house in the last couple of days how to make this thing more effective. basically the entry exit program

that we are trying to create deals with 40% of people here illegally. 40% of the people overstayed their visas and we really don't have a system that can account for that 40%. as we try to secure border i think it's very important that we do a better job when it comes to visa overstays. the 19 hijackers of 9/11 i think two words in visa overstay status and this is a problem of i think national security concern. what this amendment does we created in integrated database to share with the customs folks and i.c.e. and others that you are in a visa overstay status. this amount would share the information with federal law enforcement for intel and national security agencies expanding the group of people that have access to the database to include our federal law enforcement and telenational security agency. it also expands the requirement

to not only follow these people and determine whether or not they should have a visa reissued or they are subject to deportation but actually to locate and commence local proceedings based on reasonably available resources so we are expanding in into fashions. the number of people that get the information that you are not visa overstay status and federal and local law establishments within our government and adding the requirement where reasonably available law enforcement resources exist trying to prioritize here that you locate the billion and commence removal. >> the senator from ellen i. >> thank you and i will supported and i urge my colleagues to do the same. >> the amendment is before us as modified by the second amendment and those in favor --

>> mr. chairman can i just briefly? >> go ahead which is so everybody understands the new pope will be on the amendment as modified by the second degree amendment. >> mr. chairman this amendment is a step in the right direction. i will support it. i do believe we should be clear that we do not have under this amendment the kind of i am a trick system that is required by current law and all ports, land sea and air. we will learn later today about a report that has been held back and not made public. that can easily be done at a reasonable cost, far less than has been done before. i think this is an amendment that takes us on the in the right direction and 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 and modified by the second degree amendment signify by saying aye. if those? the ayes do have it and senator klobuchar. >> thank you mr. chairman. earlier today we talked about the importance of new visas and we all understand how helpful they are. some perpetrators actually target immigrants because they know it's difficult for them to come forward and they threaten them with deportation and that is why we have new visas. the underlying bill here recognized the importance of new visas by way of expanding their use. the bill also adds child abuse to the current list of new visa eligible crimes which includes domestic violence, sexual assault and stop in and all my simple mimic does is to build on these improvements for adding the crime of elder abuse to the list. every year roughly 2 million

cases of elder abuse are reported across the country and that's a conservative estimate. i point that we have a growing number of seniors in this country who call it the silver tsunami silver tsunami and in fact we have a growing number of immigrant elders who are victims. when i was county attorney i started a special unit on elder abuse nih reduce legislation last week that senator cornyn and i've been working on for a long time about the adey and -- guardian ad litem and i would hope we would get strong support for this amendment supported by 155 groups nationwide. i would have said at thought i add a letter of support from all of these groups to the record. i hope that we can get this done by voice vote. >> i have heard from law enforcement. this should be a tremendous help to law enforcement. all those in favor of the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> senator sessions. >> what would the senator say

about the idea of making this kind of event one that was denied rpi status or be subject to deportation? >> extending the new visas so people can't be deported if they are victim of crime and received a new visa by law enforcement. >> you offered an amendment i guess friday. >> that was a different amendment that did not relate to elder abuse. i'm asking to the include this amendment to the group of amendments or i would have done it with the other one. >> well at any rate i think that the concern that we do have too few violations covered that would deny rpi status and maybe we can look at that as time goes by. >> those in favor of the amendment by the senator from

minnesota signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes to have it in the next amendment is senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> is this number 31? >> 31, yes. it earned income tax credit. we have not thought clearly about how to make the immigration system work to advance the national interest of 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 of that taxpayers provide to those who immigrate through the earned income tax credit under current law a person should not be

allowed to immigrate to the country if they are going to be a charge on the government or a burden on the state. every nation to my knowledge expects that a person it comes to their 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 laws you really should not be admitted. we have found that is not being enforced at all really. less than two tenths of 1% of the people who apply to come to the united states are being turned down as a result of their low projected income and weak financial ability. that is not good for the immigrants and that's not good for america and it causes a problem. one of the things we identified a year or two ago was large numbers of people have become eligible immediately with the earned income tax credit. the average person who qualifies

for earned income tax credit gets about $2000 a year. that is maybe $170 a month tax-free. a subsidy of the united states tax code, not a tax deduction. it is actually a direct check from the united states government and an expenditure and not a tax deduction because it's just a check from the government but it goes through the irs program. brookings calls it the largest poverty program in the tax code. e. itc is generally available to anyone who is a social security number and many are using that today we have discovered but these rpi's are established a social security number.

daekwon qualify under the law for an earned income tax credit. i'm not sure they have understood that because they insisted that rpi aliens will not receive any federal benefits under the bill. this would grant such benefits to millions and it would be a substantial burden on our country's finances at a time we are desperately trying to reduce our deficit and find a way to save money. madam chairman i guess you're holding the floor. i would urge my colleagues to support this and i believe it's consistent with the idea that those who enter the country illegally but are being given legal status to the country under this bill, that they would not therefore become eligible for the benefit programs. >> thank you senator sessions. senator schumer. >> thank you madam chair and i want to oppose the amendment. first let's make it clear illegal immigrants are

ineligible under current law. our legislation does not change that. if you are illegal you don't get that ie pc. what about those who have -- status. they are paying into the system. they are paying taxes and doing everything like another citizen and so it's questionable whether they should we excluded from the ipc. senator mccain incidentally opposed this in 2006. he said it would impose an indefensible double standard on legalized workers, patently unfair to make them abide by our tax. this amendment has a fatal flaw. it would not only deny rpi for e. itc but also who have blue card status or are refugees or

legal immigrants who were never in the u.s. in an undocumented way with the included as well. i'm sure most of my colleagues would agree that we should not do that. >> senator schumer census article i don't 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 and then you will be eligible for eitc. i think you would be willing to accept that and i think it's consistent with what you have been telling american people repeatedly, that there be no poverty program benefit under your plan for those who enter the country illegally and we would now be given legal status helping them improve their current status that they could work anywhere in the country and take any job. i would think you would want to support this. >> let me reiterate.

as i said illegal immigrantimmigrant s under present law and under our bill would not be entitled. this gives people a perfectly legal, people who have refugee status in blue card status in agricultuagricultu reand i say one other thing here to my colleague and all of my colleagues. senator hatch it couldn't be here speaking with them regularly this weekend has an interest in some of these issues and has proposed amendments as well. most of these are finance committee jurisdiction of amendments and under the chairman's leadership and senator grassley's leadership and senator hatch's leadership. these are the kinds of issues we will be taking up on the floor. this amendment on its own goes beyond i think what anybody would want to do. it deals deals with people who've never been here illegal and denies any -- >> also primarily children, u.s.

citizens. >> of course you were entitled to all the benefits. you put each one of these persons who are unlawfully here on a status of pathway to full citizenship and they will get any benefit at that time for sure and some before that. i just believe it would be contrary to your representation that you would not get poverty programs because brookings college are the largest of the antipoverty programs and clearly it's a poverty program and not a tax plan. >> i would urge support for it. >> mr. chairman i would like to speak against this amendment. u.s. citizen should have the benefit of various services and the fact is that some 80% of children currently living within undocumented parent who under this bill, many of them would attain rpi status with the deny

the benefits of the ietf c.. where going to be particularly harming u.s. children of parents who have rpi status in one of the major reasons i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. >> thank you. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> senator franken you have amendment number eight. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have a second degree to this with -- that would fix a typo. >> the senator wishes to amend his amendment. the amendment is amended with the second degree and that is the amendment that is now before us. >> this is a simple bipartisan amendment that would transfer an important program from hhs to d.o. g. -- doj rather where experts think it will find a better home. even though overall levels of undocumented immigration have decreased the number of children and teens arriving alone at our borders has doubled. since 2008, the department of health and human services has been charged with securing pro bono lawyers for these children who are often fleeing gang violence and central america.

dhs is also charged with providing child that the kits for these children. these are essentially social workers that work to protect the interests and well-being of these children. unfortunately only have 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. senator durbin told the story from the american bar association that came before an immigration judge who told an 8-year-old-year-old child appearing alone in court that he had the right to cross-examine the governments witness. additionally i understand hhs is overwhelmed with feeding and housing and taking the care of these children and the child advocate program also is not getting the attention it deserves. this amendment which is cosponsored by senator cornyn

simply takes the child counsel program and the child advocate program and moves them out of hhs into doj. it transfers to doj all aspects empower sick, that program. it doesn't allocate additional streams of funding to the program. it just moves it from one place to the other and that is it. this amendment is supported by the american bar association, the provera institute, kids in need of defense, the young center in a variety of other organizations that are experts in children's welfare. i ask you to support it. >> those in favor of the franken amendment as amended by the substitute signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the amendment is agreed to.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> while we move on to senator grassley for senator flake next i understand you are perfectly willing to have senator graham go next. senator graham you are recognized. >> i think the senator for his accommodations. it's been very helpful and i appreciate it. this amendment when you look at our asylum and rescue status programs it says that if you return to the country where you sought asylum from without good cause you can lose your status. the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general made termination for good cause if you are attending a funeral or some other event that all of us agree would want to return to the country. the point here is to make sure that once you have granted asylum from a place you claim to have been persecuted you have to have a very good reason to go back.

the world in which you live in is not much of a stretch to having a scenario for somebody comes from a country claiming to be persecuted and their goal was not -- to persecute us. >> senator if you would yield for a second. you have the second re-amendment? >> i do. >> without objection the graham amendment is amended by his second degree amendment and that is the amendment we now have before us. >> the burden is upon the alien and waivers may be obtained before or after travel abroad and 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 country unless they have good reason. it allows scrutiny and asks questions that probably need to be asked. >> doe this require them to

terminate or allow the secretary on its own initiative somehow re-entry? >> it requires it be waived if there's good cause and if you are going back for a funeral or some other event that i think we can all relate to. the requirement for the status is waived to the burden is on you to prove it. >> when you go back and your status is terminated and you have to reapply -- >> before fg travel and you have to basically prove a good cause. >> in a situation of father brought the children here and returned claiming he was under threats for his own safety. obviously he wasn't. he returned right back so i think this is a good amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> the senator from illinois. >> if i might ask the sponsor of

the amendment a few questions so we understand the critical phrase good cause. examples that have been used, someone risks returning to the home country because of fear or refugee risks returning to their own country, home country to attend the funeral of a loved one. >> that would be a good cause. >> if they need to come back to recovered documents or property left behind without also be considered? >> wealth these are decisions to be made. i don't think you can legislate every good cause but the point is to make sure there's a good reason that the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general make this decision. >> so let me give another example. i want too a record of it before i say what i'm about to say. assume you are and evangelical christian in iran and being discriminated against. you are here in the united states as an aside leave. the iranian regime changes which

we are all praying for and becomes much more tolerant and works with their country. returning them to iran would be considered a good cause situation? >> i don't know if you would be allowed asylum. the reason no longer exists. see some people have made a -- in the united states at that point. >> i think two things have to happen. the asylum status is granted the cause the iranian regime is persecuting almost anyone who doesn't really them. for some reason the underlying persecution went away i don't think that's a good cause situation whether or not you are entitled to that category because the country may have change its behavior. if you went back to iran like you say for a parent or some other reason that is when it would be good cause analysis would take place. >> 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 our routine and in fact people are risking their own safety to go back for compelling situations which i think would fit into the good cause standard. >> we talked of talk to the administration about a standard and i thought good cause would be the best way to describe what we are doing and adding the attorney general is another person who could wave it under some circumstances. >> i just want to express concern here. i think we may be micromanaging. dhs scrutinizes the travel and what happens if you go back to regain custody of a child or you go back to get important documents that may reflect anything from property to child custody? i am afraid that this is, i

don't know if this is the intent and i don't think it is the intent but i'm afraid the effect of it is going to create problems where -- >> if you go back to make a bomb is what i'm worried about. >> there they have the authority to cut it off. i'm afraid that when we do the micromanaging of this we undercut the kind of discretion that we would 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 have seen refugees moving from area to area and we have seen the conflict in syria. the senator from illinois has mentioned the situation in iran and others. i understand the concern by the

senator but i'm going to have to oppose this amendment. >> if i could mr. chairman just to wrap up what i'm trying to do. the people who make way for determination would be the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general of the united states and i'm not trying to micromanage her decision but i'm trying to tell those who come here to avoid ursa keeshan that we are a welcoming nation but in light of the world as it is particularly boston i think would be smart for us to inquire as to why you are going to back to the place you're from. usually if you're coming you are coming from a place that involve persecution they are not normally aligned with their and chest and sometimes quite frankly are enemies of the nation. so i just think given what happened in boston and going back to the funeral of a parent

or a senator durbin said that would certainly be -- but if you're going back and we don't know what you did and you come back here and a bomb goes off i think we need to really look long and hard at the status and make sure it's being given to people who deserve it and if you go back to the place you were persecuted we should have that conversation before you go back. >> when secretary napolitano testified before she said there's nothing in the underlying health that would undermine national security. i think that this, i think the amendment improves what it was but i cannot and will not so poured it. do you wish a roll call? >> of voice vote would be fine. >> all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. opposed signify by saying nay

lope. the ayes appear to have it and the ayes do have it. senator coons. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to call up amendment number five. this cement will streamline the process receiving the most relevant documents pertaining to their proceedings in immigration court. immigrants are already entitled to these documents under the ninth circuit. these documents are roughly referred to as their a file that under current practice they have to file a freedom of information act or foia request to get the dock in. there've been over 100,000 requests in each of the last two fiscal years. dhs currently employs 200 people full time to respond to these requests at a cost of over $13 million a year in strikingly in 2011 less than 1% of these foia requests were rejected suggesting the laborious formality of a foia request is simply a waste of time and

resources. been while the immigration court delays proceedings to a later date in this could take six months or more often while that person waits in detention at taxpayer expense. this amendment will hopefully save time and expense. given some concerns expressed by dhs the scope of information is then narrow. it is no greater than the artery required and limited to documents and dhs position and thus will not obligated dhs to disclose anything either beyond their current document holdings or anything privileged of classified. in short i believe this amendment will fix one of many broken elements of our current immigration bill, process and reduce 100,000 needless foia needless foia applications a year ian that urge my colleagues to support it. >> i think this will make our immigration courts function more efficiently, something we all want, as well as fairness and 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 have deployed millions of people -- back to pour billions of people at her borders. this is saying if someone has entered the country up to stop the deportation process until every document is gathered? if the person has no defense for the fact that there and make country illegally and we do this daily on and daily basis and there have for apprehended sometimes with a court hearing they are deported so would it include even people who have been apprehended after a short time? >> the senator from alabama who races i think a the legitimate concern this only applies to deportation proceedings so the significant number of folks who are apprehended and returned

without any court hearing and without appearing before a judge, this would not apply. >> i had been a federal prosecutor from most 15 years and you have a large number of individuals involved in violation of the line you have to handle that in a systematic way. i just believe that this would give a guarantee to almost any person being deported that they could slow the system down to make some officials certified that every document has been produced and it's hard to do that. maybe you have to stop the whole procedure and run all kinds of checks to determine if you have got every single document. i know the us culpatory material in routine criminal cases, i spent a lot of time when they make that certification there's

nothing in the file they have to be sure it's accurate because they can be disciplined if not. >> understand the senators concerned. these are documents which dhs is already obligated to provide under the ninth circuit decision and it is limited to the so-called a file and so the application of, the search for brady documents for example in a criminal proceeding isn't exactly relevant here. this amendment has been crafted so it is limited to documents that would frankly be in the jacket of the case that would be in the possession of the dhs representatives as they were going to a deportation hearing so it doesn't require a searching review beyond the scope of her relatively narrowly defined classic document. would it simply does is reduce the burden of having to file a formal foyer proceeding and wait for the response and wait for the documents back and all that

but i can tell my good colleague -- >> i'm just worried about frankly, there's a lot of things in this legislation that is going to cause a great amount of litigation and extreme hardship. hardship can mean almost anything. this means a person subject to deportation the lawyer has to have a trial and who knows what might happen? with the heart to your amendment i just leave that in fact the situation where the facts are crystal clear, the defendant is in violation of our immigration laws. they know when everybody know that the visa has plainly expired. you get to court and you're ready to go and some document isn't in the file. now the lawyer holds, puts a hold on it and demands the dock you meant so that has to be taken off the docket and someone has to find this document that

has really no value to the substance of the situation. it's very valuable in delaying and frustrating the normal operating process. you may have answered but i'm afraid your attempts to answer the questions i raised are not sufficient and therefore i would oppose it. >> senator whitehouse? >> mr. chairman if i could ask my colleague, at what point the application's of his amendment are triggered? when does the obligation to provide these documents arise and is it one that confers on the individual that they could go to court and assertive violation of some kind if they were provided or is it more just a way of organizing the administration of this? does it create an action on the

part of the individual and when does it arise? >> this is under b, the alien shall at the beginning of the proceeding for any reasonable time thereafter automatic it received a complete copy of the relevant document in possession of the department of homeland security including all documents protected by privilege, law enforcement. contained a maintained by the government that includes all transactions involving the alien commonly referred to as an a file. your question answer would be at the beginning of the proceedings are reasonable time. >> what does that mean the beginning of the proceedings? >> to the point raised by the senator from alabama you would have to be in removal proceedings in immigration court in order for this to work. there is a significant number of immigrants who are detained and deported without there being a formal deportation so this will not apply to them.

>> okay. it's not clear to me with what the beginning of the proceedings are. the beginning of a formal proceeding in the courtroom? i'm not familiar with immigration law to know what kicks off after the proceeding. it's very colorful and the criminal complaint filed against the individual and if it have to be attached at that complaint is part of the original filing or is it at the beginning? and does it create a private right of action? >> my attorneys assert no. >> the senator from california. >> mr. chairman i think this is a good amendment. it's my understanding also that the ninth circuit has held and the conservative judge andrew kline felt who has heard over 2400 immigration appeals that

this -- is entitled to this and the alien shall have access to other departments if any other wreck or 10 document not considered by the attorney general would be confidential pertaining to the alien submission of presence in the united states. this essentially if i understand what senator coons is trying to do affects anything not confidentially so the alien kidnap whatever information. it's just not confidential. >> by questions raised by secretary napolitano and i believe april it is limited to physical possession. they don't have to go searching in case for remote files that may have existed in southern other agency that sometime. >> i will support it. senator sessions.

>> i think this would probably apply to the operation streamline cases that come up and people have a hearing and are deported with some penalty but you could have a clear situation where someone entered in arizona and left and was deported and reentered in texas. the case is open and shut. he has no legal basis to be in this country but the lawyer now can file this amendment and according to your language of require the removal proceedings may not proceed until they receive all these documents. i think it's unnecessary and fundamentally deportation is not a criminal case. if it's a criminal case you could also have a discovery on behalf of the defendant. this is deportation so all the burden is on the government and

none on the -- >> those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes to have it. the next amendment, senator flake you are recognized and understand you want to bring up an amendment for senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman and i call up the hatch amendment number six. the underlying legislation establishes a biographic be sexist system and ensures implementation by requiring electronic exit. >> if the senator were holed up for just a moment. is this an amendment that is going to be second-degree. >> yes. >> do you wish to call up a second-degree amendment? >> that is correct. the second-degree pressures that the report from dhs is more timely. >> without objection the amendment before us is as

amended by the schumer second-degree amendment. is that correct? that is what we will have before us. i interrupted you. senator flake and then senator schumer. >> as we know the underlying legislation critics of biographic entry and exit system and operates by collecting machinery to hold the same passport information at seaports. this has to be used before the rpi immigrants adjust their status. as such the bill incentivizes incremental progress towards the implementation and will increase our security. as we discussed previously in the markup the department of homeland security has had difficulty implementing a biometric system. this will simply build on the provisions of the underlying will. the hatch amendment tackles the problem by deploying a biometric exit system progressively and systematically.

the first establishes and exit system and international airports within two years after the date of enactment and then it requires the dhs as secretary to report on the effectiveness of the system and establishes a mandatory biometric exit 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 landed seaports and by doing it gracefully will not only save money but improve the system and benefit from increased security. this is an agreement from both sides of the aisle. there is an agreement that you need to build toward a biometric visa system. implementing this biometric system is long overdue and the hatch amendment will simply bring it on faster and do it anyway that gives us the information we need to improve security along the way but make sure we actually can do it. i asked my colleagues for their support of the amendment. >> mr. chairman?

>> first i want to thank senator hatch and senator flake for offering this amendment. i think it's a great good and responsible proposal. and it mandates as senator flake said the biometric exit system in our airports and it's a good start. once we see how the program works. the second degree is very simple. it would require dhs to submit a report to congress that analyzes the goodness of the biometric exit data collection and airports and clarifies, like we are trying to do with everything in this amendment that the cost will be funded and it will not cost the taxpayers single nickel. it's good or postal puzzle and i complement senator hatch on offering it. as we all said we would love to move to biometric but we had to make sure it works and they can hold up everything until it does. this is a good start and i think

it's a good amendment and i hope it will get good broad bipartisan support. >> senator grassley and senator feinstein. >> mr. chairman this is a good amendment and it really shows people have listened to the discussion here and come forward with what i think is a very positive compromise. and it might view the biometric field is the field of the future and i think it's the most important place and senator flake this makes it possible. 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 of united states? >> mr. chairman? it would not apply to any u.s. citizen so and he worried that u.s. citizens would be fingerprinted or anything else is not under the purview of this amendment, that's for sure. >> the fingerprinting eventually if people crossing the u.s. canadian border cracks during this dozens of times a week? >> certainly they would have to come back to the congress and the distinguished chairman of the judges shared committee and get it to this committee before that could ever happen. >> thank you. senator grassley. senator sessions. >> we talked a good bit about this because it's so important colleagues. i would like to share with you a couple of fundamental things

that i believe the facts show. number one, we fingerprint people before they come into the country. that is in the system. the entry system works. we don't read it when they exit i exit the country and that is the whole system. senator hatch's amendment make some progress but as i will show it to you now i think riddick conclusively there is no reason not all to be this -- with the process and the entire system the current law require should be implemented and land, sea and airports. it is what the whole system has been designed for and it's a retreat from current law and a weakening of current law even with the hatch amendment. i would just note we just had an amendment on hearings on deportation. that weakens current law. we just had an amendment square

and a slightly comes to the country and he doesn't have to tell the world he is suppressed or has served as silent fervor years and now it can be any length of time. another weakening of current law and step after step in this legislation that weakens the current law. i did not know it until friday that there has been a clear report on this. in 2009 report that was made on how the exit system works by major khalid with fingerprints. it went apparently to the appropriations committee and nobody knew about it. i didn't know about it until friday. i have got some things i want to share about what was said. mr. chairman. i said the pilot program confirms the ability to buy magically record the exit of aliens subject to u.s. visits departing by air.

that dealt with the airport and seaport. it goes on to say that it has very little impact -- overall the air exit pilot program affirmed the ability to buy magically record the exit of aliens subject u.s. visits in the united states by air. it goes on to say the cbc reduced -- friends listen to me on this line. i didn't know this was in the report. maybe that is why it never was made public. the cbp pilot process 9448 aliens subject to u.s. visits identified 44 watch lists hits. 44 watch hitlists.

the csa pilot program i think that was the one in atlanta that you referred to yesterday as being a failure last week. the tsa and i'm quoting now, the tsa pilot 2296 aliens subject u.s. visits 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 hand fingerprint readers. you come off an airplane and you are exiting the terminal. you don't need a big area. only international flights would be affected. you put your fingerprint on a machine. it air reads them instantly and you know whether or not this

person is on a hit list, a watch list or has a warrant out for their arrest before it they come to 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. when a person is arrested and they have any suspicion they asked them to check their fingerprints and they do so. that is how most fugitives are discovered. we don't go out hunting down fugitives. they are picked up when they are arrested for some other offense and the fingerprints are run and they find out they are wanted for murder somewhere. that is how they are apprehended. so this report is really unbelievable and that we don't know about it and did not know about it. i am highly offended. this is why the american people are upset. they don't trust their

government. the irs can't be trusted and the homeland security right to report in keeping secret, nobody knows why. we have been told about an entry exit visa system. that is the truth. i am getting dad gum tired of it. >> a lot of people are tired of it. a lot of people are tired of a lot of things i'm going to ask senator flake. >> i have some other things to say about it. >> we are prepared for a vote but go ahead. >> the report found that overall exit pilots confirmed the ability to buy magically record the exit of aliens subject u.s. visits in departing the united states by air and they also found a number of other things. they found that it did not increase line length at departure time and had little or no impact on departure times.

what about cost? we have been told it cost $25 billion for something like this. the cost would appear to be minimal, from five to 10 mobile readers across all 150 international airports. the cost is nothing close to what the airlines have been complaining about or claiming. the cost for this solution is the same solution that dhs knows and their own study found, a study is about 133,000 per airport. and about 50 million across all airports right now. that would be five to 10 mobile reidel's -- mobile readers for airport and annual cost for cbp manpower for hours of operation for international outbound terminals would be about -- see what my colleague yield? you said 150 million?

>> i would just say to my colleague we understand that he would wish us to go to a biometric system immediately. we debated that at great length two days ago. this amendment by senator hatch ,-com,-com ma the colleague who sits next to him was -- says okay this committee won't go along with implementing it immediately for all the reasons we discussed last week which you and i disagree with. let's at least try so let's put an immediate system in place which is the biographic for the swipe fee visa card and because we all want to move to biometrics? let's try the fair metric. it would seem to me my colleagues even if they couldn't succeed in getting his amendment to do by metric immediately would be supportive of this amendment if he believes in it.

>> reclaiming my time, we have a report that shows it can be done now senator schumer. it completely rechecks what you told us last week. it's not a 25 million-dollar process. i don't know who told you. i'm sure the airlines have been telling you it's going to be expensive but it's not. it requires no infrastructure changers. it deals with terrorists and criminal departures. >> senator feinstein and senator flake. do do you want a roll call? >> i'm concerned about this. i have the floor. >> i'm sorry, but you are finished. >> i know you would like to interrupt. >> no, no take as long as you want and repeat your statement as often as you want. you have the right. go ahead. >> this is what the current law is today.

that is why they did this work. it requires an entry exit system and land sea and air and requires biometrics. there's no mystery about this. it can be done. why is it not been? i don't know. i have said before it seems to me whenever you produce anything that will actually work the people involved in pushing for immigration oppose it and this will work. it had 94 and 44 individuals on the hit list. 44 on a watch hit list. these are the people that ought to watch this because they presumably are criminals or tears that would do harm to the united states of america. someone needs to ask why we haven't done it already and the reason is the sex trade, and security has been on strike.

the secretary of homeland security has not been enforcing the law but is undermining the enforcement of the law. the risk of their own jobs in future. as i said they this bill makes the current system worse. ..

>> this is what they say about the current situation. they represent the current adjudications officers. they are pressured to applications instead of conducting diligent interviews and investigation. they go point after point after point. they have the latest secretary undermine the law. it is not smart.

that is what we need to be doing. it now, i believe it is critically orton. 40% of people are entering by visa. we have the ability to reduce that. if we pass this amendment and the current system is not being enforced, it puts up another six or eight or 10 years. had we know that i'll ever be implemented.

just like in 1986, we did promise of the we're going to do something in the distant future. i don't see much enthusiasm. they have no real intention, it seems to me, of his thing in going to work. we have large numbers of people on the watchlist being discovered by entry and exit visa system operating properly. we need that. the study that homeland security did, that study shows that it can be done and it can be done in a reasonable way. why we won't do it and do it probably within a year, 18 months, i just have no idea. and i just -- >> serve? >> i won't support it. >> the ranking member has sought

recognition. one make sure that everyone has heard and who wants to be heard. >> i'm going to put my statement in the record. someone of what senator sessions has that. let me sum up i named that as well, nobody can question about the united states being a nation that welcomes immigrants. whether for a short time or a long time. make no doubt about it. the united states is a sovereign nation. if you are a sovereign nation coming have to control your borders. how many americans walk over the world to go to some other country? well, no, they don't do it. we have a situation based upon the rule of law, coming and going, it is really important. we have a nation based upon the

rule of law that in 1980 as we passed an entry system, and exit system, and it is not a law and what i see before us is a fig leaf that leads us to believe that we are doing more than what the bill requires, but because the build is a lot less than what we decided in 1990s six, i think that this amendment should be defeated. >> i would like to thank the senator. >> i very much support non-actors tori part of the senator from alabama and what he stated. you know, i think it is correct that the biometric system is much more preferable. i suspect the opponents of the airlines, there is a letter of the record saying that they opposed it. but there is no question that it

is the better system and i very much doubt that it's going to cost the amount of money that has been suggested. we discussed this last week. the senator and i, senator cornyn and i resolved to work together. i don't look at this as a fig leaf but a start. i think it is a very good start. the 10 busiest airport, they will immediately proceed to implement a biometric system. that is exactly what we should do. so i would like to thank the senator and others. i'm happy to work on the floor if there is more information. if there is a way of taking this further and getting a biometric system in effect. in a year or so, i will vote for that as well. so i would like to just give my support for a yes vote on that. i would like to thank the people that put it together. >> i will be very brief.

all of us sympathize with what was said by senator sessions. we were all frustrated by the slow pace of this. i think the senator put it best. this is something we have had since 1996. this amendment by senator hatch and current system is implemented faster since 1996. so there is nothing that weakens the current law. the more aggressive approach has been taken since 1996 and that is what we cannot lose. i appreciate senator hatch for putting this forward and i think it is a vitamin and i support it. >> mr. chairman, senator sessions, please go ahead. >> i think the chairman for allowing me to speak on this important issue.

the amendment is stronger than the gang of eight ill. it is not stronger than the current law. it requires a biometric visa. so i would ask if there is any trigger here. is there any trigger that says other actions to legalize those who are here illegally and the final steps, but they fail or the administration fails to complete the system even as senator hatch's bill proposes. >> i do not think it is. once again, we get a promise for the future, but not any evidence and confidence of it. senator feinstein decided this because it has been such a long and complex matter.

i have begun to believe the costs were higher than i thought the cost would be pretty high, but it looks like from this report, it is not that expensive to have a fingerprint reading machine. people just off the international shipping go through a line and they put their fingers on a machine. they have already had fingerprints taken, and then it's red and it is something when they exit. so there may have been an arrest warrant issued while they were in the united states and you have the ability to change that. okay, let's have the clerk call the roll before we recess at 1220 pm. let's call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the amendment has passed. senator it indicates what we have in person. >> thank you. i would like to call didn't

amendment which is cosponsored by senator cornyn and i want to thank him for his kind support. since 9/11, u.s. citizenship and immigration services has worked with law enforcement and the intelligence community to develop anti-fraud mechanisms and security screening measures to enhance the security screening process used for the asylum and refugee programs. so today, the vaio graphic and biometric checks are done by checking the refugee applicants against databases maintained by the department of homeland security, the ei, the dod, and the national counterterrorism center. this amendment would essentially codify these national security checks. they are currently conducting it as part of the refugee process, and therefore, it is secure that they will be continued. in addition, the amendment will

give a jury of homeland security to flex ability in the future to utilize other federal records were databases that would enhance the screening process. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> senator grassley? >> i support this amendment. i am concerned that the underline the bill allows the secretary to waive the removal of an alien who has willfully through his own fault refuse to comply with the biometric screening and to make this amendment effective, i don't think the secretary should be able to waive the requirement. and i hope sometime down the line that senator feinstein would work with me to address this concern. >> i would be happy to. >> all those in favor, please say so. yes votes have it.

the senator from california, it is very good to do this. we will stand in recess until order of 2:00 o'clock. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are checking on the amendment. we can go to senator coons on his amendment. we have the senators and myself, senator feinstein, senator whitehouse, senator franken, senator coons, senator blumenthal.

[inaudible conversations] >> it seems like it's finally part of it. senator coons, yet thank you, mr. chairman. following of this amendment, it will fix an administrative problem in our current immigration system regarding the different roles of the executive office of immigration review and vhs. under current practice, immigration is given case completion targets. these targets are measured by a clock that is maintained and often stopped for reasons not caused by the immigrant, such as air is for delay by the government or scheduling

conflict on the judges judge's calendar. the problem with this amendment seeks to fix results when an asylum applicant, who has authorized working after 180 days is delayed because this is the only clock to measure progress in the proceeding. this will separate the two clocks. the asylum work authorization and the adjudication clock. so that judges can still be held accountable for the efficient and timely disposal. but it doesn't adversely affect those who need authorization to be able to earn enough for food and shelter and to avoid becoming dependent or otherwise worth of their family. i think this is a commonsense amendment. i urge the colleagues to support it. >> i tend to agree with the senator.

are we accepting the voice for this? >> i would gladly do so. >> please reply by saying yes. [roll call] >> we have it. senator grassley,. >> it seems that the amendments that we have, we just took care of one of the amendment. it seems like with senator coons, we have this. >> just. >> before i explain my amendment, let me say something

unrelated to my amendment, but the process of the committee. when the group of eight legislation keynote, five or six of us on this committee. we are having this. the same time that we sent that letter, i brought up the issue about the boston bombings. through all of the press report, i brought up the boston bombings because i was trying to stall legislation. there is a difference between installing it and having to deliver due process or it i bring it up. since i raised the issue about the boston situation, several members of this committee have spoken about the legitimacy of the connection of the two.

when i hear reports about that, it irritates me. there is a general consensus that when people come and go from our country, we ought to have adequate control over our borders and it isn't just a cia issue, it's also immigration issue. so i bring this amendment before you today. the boston terrorist bombings have brought to the forefront serious problems with our immigration system. for example, we know that the older brother was interviewed once by the fbi about his involvement with extremism. then he left the united states for six or seven months last year, returning to an area known for islamic extremism. but he was not even questioned upon his return here.

this young man had an application for citizenship pending when he committed the bombings. his brother was granted citizenship lesson nine months prior on september 11, 2012. it is not clear that any review was conducted of his activities before it was granted. the older brother was apparently arrested for domestic violence and may have been convicted of this crime. but apparently no effort was made to remove him from the country based upon his conduct. both bombers apparently received legal status after their father was granted asylum in this country from russia. asylum was based upon an alleged fear of execution are. eventually they gained citizenship. but if they feared execution in their country, why did they go back in that they voluntarily returned and had been living there while their sons plotted

the attack here in the united states. the two men were allegedly helping and tried to cover up the bombings after that fact. you would know their names. i'm not going to repeat them. they did not have legal status in the united states. why didn't the department of homeland security make an effort to remove the students before they were arrested for the cover-up? how many of the other acquaintances are there? are there more people involved? there are a lot of unanswered questions and cosponsors that agree and we need to incorporate changes. the senior senator from arizona and author of the bills had that as part of overall immigration reform, we should look at the process of who is allowed in this country under what

circumstances and what is the situation in background, particularly from countries have a history, such as others where there has been significant influence of extremism. during one hearing that we had two weeks ago, the senator said that if there are things that come up as a result of what happened, let's add them to the bill. i would be interesting in knowing what my colleagues have known. i would like to know why border patrol and customs did not have access to this. i have inquired with the fbi about intelligence failures. i do not have responses to those questions are we must understand

and address these and other provisions of the bill, mainly changes in my amendment would allow for the changes student visas to go into effect and the inspectors general submit their review. this review has started and it is a coordinated effort with other inspector generals including the department of homeland security and we should not weaken this. we should allow more time for people to file claims and officers at ports of entry to conduct non-adversarial interviews until we know the process that we have in place and it is now working. the database and the procedures in place is what we need to know are working properly.

there is no doubt that this has been a serious gap in our national security in the past or if this goes way back to 1993 leaves. after that attack on the world trade center. he mandated the implementation of a student tracking systems and it took years to get that up and running. the system is operating today. it is flawed. even the department would tell us that. we have been working to updated and i am told that that work on the upgrade has stalled. it is true that this is a benefit to our society and we learn from them and foster diplomatic relations and encourage peace for our work with foreign students. that the nation's security is at risk and we need to control the borders and we can't ignore them. we need to understand what went wrong in the boston case in order to prevent something like that again. i yield thefloor.

>> i appreciate that. i appreciate the director of national intelligence athletics director general to conduct this review. we will get that review. i don't want that to be holding up the bill waiting to review it, but the chair is here. and i yield to senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think you are exactly right. i agree with much of what senator grassley has said. however, this amendment essentially prohibits changes made by the bell, taking effect until a year after the director of national intelligence commit it for congress. a review of the intelligence community's and inspector general for the handling of the boston museum. this would prevent changes to the adjudicatory process and the

student visa program from taking effect until this is unrelated with a report on the boston marathon, the amendment requires the intelligence community to include two items. asylum process, student tracking. we're not part of current reviews and are not within the scope. review has already begun. it is narrowly focused on the possession and what was done with it with information sharing. specifically, the inspectors general told the staff that they are focusing on this and what information the intelligence

community have on the family before the attacks took place as well. was that information complete? was it accurate? was it compiled and properly shared with all agencies and departments that had a need to know. also, what gaps can be field by these procedures? the inspectors general, david buckley, they made it clear that last tuesday, the scope of the review was and should be narrow. and is not intended to get into other issues. this amendment has a lot of issues in it. some could be construed to be political. i don't think we should punish them for the actions just

because the brothers father had sought asylum in the united states. this includes the college classmates that had been terminated. they were academically dismissed by the university they attend it. i would urge a no vote. >> i agree with the senator from california. they're always going to be issues. we can find one after another delayed after another. especially before we move forward. that is a prescription for nothing happening. with all due respect with everyone involved. but the fact is what happened in boston is a law enforcement matter. this is one thing. but i'm more interested in

questions that the fbi promptly gives to the boston authorities information, they seem to indicate this. they will, for this committee as it is indicated here. >> what a sweeping? >> yes, we certainly want to tighten up this bill in any way that we can. last week we accepted two amendments to deal with student visa tracking and we accepted an amendment that dealt with the actions around the christmas day

bomber and accepted those. this does not propose a specific solution. a year later, they put things into effect. it's not the same. we are very much open to improving the bell whether they are for or against the bill, colleagues, and what they believe in. >> thank you, senator. >> i will close by asking my colleagues to think in terms of whether or not we want to learn from date or the loopholes and it's obvious they have been well demonstrated. this program should not be a problem. however well intentioned your vote might be, it ust means

that we are showing are not going along an amendment like this, that we are just ignoring our mistakes. i'm ready for a vote. >> okay. >> those in favor, please vote yes. those opposed please vote no. okay, those that have a. >> i have 49. that is my excellent. >> okay. >> okay. [inaudible conversations] >> before i go to the details of

my amendment, i think it is pretty clear that we could potentially, and maybe even now, have problems with some countries. what is wrong with taking into consideration and the bill prohibits racial profiling. in routine law enforcement decisions. it does not include specific investigations and national security from the general prohibition. this includes the federal government to make securitization by utilizing the country of origin. current law allows the federal government to utilize the country of origin as a reason to deny entry to country.

by limiting this exception and use of profiling without mentioning the country of origin, the bill goes well beyond the current discretion that constitutional and statutory law give our customs and border patrol and officers. when making admissibility decisions, the roman officials need tools at their disposal that let them analyze potential threats. my amendment would simply state the profiling based upon a country of origin is not prohibited by a ban on racial profiling. it does not either the country of origin used as a racist for limiting admissions. it simply states that nothing in the bill prohibits it. so don't read something into this amendment that it doesn't do. in fact, when addressing the

five nominees for the privacy and the liberties oversight board from last year, i asked all the nominees whether the country of origin can be used to profile. now, out of those five nominees, four of them agreed that the country can be utilized as a basis to scrutinize entry into the country. it is argued that nothing in the law or constitution prohibits it. they argued that the amendment ensures that this that is low has not changed. i urge my colleagues to support what i think is a nobleman and connected with national security, used for other reasons. why is it not used for this

legislation. see that mr. chairman, thank you very much a senator, let me say two or three things about this. first of all, there is no mention of the country of origin in this bill and in the language of this bill. we do not mention it. that was the basis of your argument. i ask you in this have to take another look at it. we don't raise that issue. >> can ask a question? >> yes. >> why don't you mention it? >> we have specified that you cannot use race order ethnicity. >> i'm not arguing your point. i think you're right including the bill. but what is the country of origin have to do about any profiling? >> is not mentioned in here.

why did we pick race and ethnicity? those were established by the attorney general in 2003. it embodies the practice of the attorney general. why do we even care about this? well, you and i knew one another a lot in washington. but we also one another a lot at the airport. we spent a lot of time together traveling back and forth to the midwest. so was about 15 years ago that i got a complaint, a result by a chicago television station.

she reached up to use when you put the story on it. it turned out that as a result of the story going on the air, women started calling this reporter from all across chicago promising that it happened to me as well. when we did the investigation on this in 1990, african women were being profiled by the customs service. african-americans were twice as likely and possibly nine times as likely and hispanic americans were likely to be strip searched. there was no evidence of contraband in those groups that were being strip searched. was clearly a waste of effort and consulting exercise of authority. having said that, let me be the

first to say that the men and women in law enforcement, including customs agent. occasionally mistakes are made. we took this language and limited it to the ethnicity and made some specific exception and it does not go to the country of origin. >> okay. >> if you want me to close come i will do so. is anyone else want to speak? >> briefly, mr. chairman. if there is information and you have a small individual involved in the, would that not be something that you would identify? >> i just don't know what the

languages. >> the senator from alabama is right. it says that there'll law enforcement officers may not use race or at ethnicity except they may rely on it if this specific suspect description exist. >> okay, so why wouldn't country of origin -- >> i don't know why. i don't know why this argument is being made. the country a virgin should be included here. is that what you're arguing? >> yes, like the editor suggested. >> the attorney general and others happen to believe that that was a waste of time. to say that everyone who comes here from one country is going to be object to a special search. it may not make us any safer.

i'm worried about some of the language that we have in this. some of it is exactly the same as the department of justice guidelines. some might say that that is not right. but there are others that say investigator has will powers that you'd normally expect an investigation to have it go beyond the department of justice guidelines. i guess my concern is before we start trying to codify the guidelines were the federal law officers, we need to realize that that is not easily changed. the guidelines are within the constitutional parameters and include legitimate powers that can make changes to provide exceptions.

but we have unwisely put in the statutory language that we have not fully understood what they mean yet. we might be causing more trouble. i won't get into it today, but i'm inclined to think that as we deal with immigration, it makes sense to explicitly state that. >> mr. chairman, therein lies the difference. i think that is a mistake. we are going to stop everyone looks hispanic and middle eastern and everyone who looks like they may be from africa. but think about what that says about us and the colossal waste of resources to. >> i was thinking that you were saying that you can consider specific race and ethnicity that can be used. >> i will continue to look at.

>> a 5-foot 10 person of a particular nationality was suspected of such a thing. which is just good law enforcement. i do not support the amendment. >> all those in favor, we see a. >> those opposing him. >> okay. we have other amendments? >> we have an amendment. [inaudible conversations]

>> okay. so we have senator feinstein. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have a second? >> i do not think so. i do have a second-degree. >> we will consider the amendment as amended by the second degree. that would be the amendment. the amendment before that committee. it is amended by the second-degree amendment. >> this amendment would fire live training of all u.s. customs and border protection

personnel were likely to come into contact with unaccompanied alien children. there is an internet program. but there are thousands of these children. and i really don't deem not sufficient. such training would be required to incorporate the services of child welfare positions and culturally competent and developmentally appropriate interviewing skills to assist. i think that we all know that children entering the united states without a parent or a legal guardian are uniquely horrible in ways it is difficult to discern immediately. let me tell you my experience. i was watching television one night in california. this was several years back. i saw a chinese young girl in chains before a judge crying.

the reason she was crying is that she couldn't speak the language. her parents were dead. she was in a criminal court in chains. there was nobody there to help her or interpret for her and this is a problem. so we have worked on it year after year to try to provide cost-effective services for our youngsters. this amendment essentially would call upon the customs and border patrol to train personnel to be able to deal with some of the problems. the second degree means that there is no additional staff. it is just training. the additional unamended have additional staff and i took that out. this is just the training. >> are there any objections? any objections?

>> are there any objections to the amendment? i support this for the record. >> i also supported. let's vote. >> okay. now we have the senator grassley amendment. >> okay. >> 42 or 43? >> 43.

>> okay. >> senator grassley? >> okay, my amendment is about gains. i assume that there is a lot of good use of the word, like the gang of eight. probably thousands of other uses. but when it comes to -- for a lot of people, they think of them as involving criminal activities. consequently, my amendment affects this part of the bell that seems to showed too much respect for respect ability for getting activities are this includes language that creates a convoluted and an effective process for determining whether those should be deemed

inadmissible or deported. specifically 3701 requires homeland security to prove to the foreign nationals. one has a prior federal felony conviction for drug trafficking or violent crimes. the second one has knowledge that the gain continues to commit crimes and has acted in furtherance of gang activity. even if all of those provisions could be proven, under the bill, the secretary can still issue a waiver. understand that you can have all of these things wrong with an individual or individuals. secretary can still grant a waiver. in this particular instance, you know, i don't think you should even have a waiver. but i have also made a complaint

about this 867 page bill. that there are too many waivers and too much delegation of authority. that we ought to legislate more than delegate. so the proposed process is way too narrow because it is limited only to those gang members with prior federal drug trafficking and violent crime convictions. it does not include state convictions like rape or murder. foreign nationals who have drug trafficking or violent crime convictions. they are already subject to deportation. were being found inadmissible. so the provisions add nothing and will not be used. it is at best, it is a feel-good measure to say that we are being tough on criminal gangs. we are really doing nothing to

remove the criminal gang members. it is easier to prove that someone is a can acted drug trafficker in both a drug trafficker and a gang member. as it is currently written, why would this provision never be used? simply put, i don't think it would ever be used. my amendment strikes the do-nothing provision and issues a clear and simple standard to address the album of gang members. the secretary of homeland security must prove that criminal street gang membership, that the person who is a danger to the community. once the secretary proves these things, the burden does shift to the foreign national to prove he is not dangerous or do not know that the group was in a street gang. it is straightforward.

we are helping to remove dangerous criminal gang members. also brings up the possibility of a waiver. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and provide real measures to remove one national criminal gang members from united states of america two i yield the floor. >> okay. the gang member from illinois. >> i don't want to make lightly of the subject matter here. i don't know. [laughter] >> let me say at the outset that gang activity is deadly and dangerous. there isn't a day that goes by in a major city in america went gang activity was not evidenced by shootings and killings and

awful things which occur in my state or perhaps in yours. certainly in california. what i am about to say should not diminish the seriousness that we are trying to address in the amendment. our bill says that we have strong standards to make certain that the gang members are inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible for this rpi status. but we do it in a way that establishes two standards. the first is knowledge that you know that you are part of the gang activity. first and second, in furtherance of the goals of the gang. knowledge and action are the two basics. your amendment does not address it. i just read through trying to find out what your standard was. were standard is a declaration. any alien is inadmissible who is

a member of the gang. we define it. you don't define them. the difficulty is that once you have this undefined standard, you shift the burden, unlike most criminal cases, where there is a burden in a presumption of innocence. saying that once we have established this, you have to prove that by convincing evidence that you're not. i think that our standard is a more credible and defensive one. going back to the premise, i could not agree with you more on the deadly and dangerous aspects of the gang. that is why we take it very seriously and spells it out in a way that we can talk about. what if someone got a gang tattoo at the age of 12. they haven't been involved actively in a gang. they decided to do whatever they

need to do. would you establish a that person is a member of the gang because they have that as well? simply by virtue of this well, i don't think it is a fair standard. i respect the seriousness of the amendment. i urge my colleagues to stand by the bill. i think it is much clearer with very strong language and we do not want gang members as part of this bill when it comes to this in the united states mr. chairman, california has been the source of gains and the last time i looked there was something like 108,000 and gang members that respond out of that. i was just reading a language of the bill and i would like to take a moment to read it.

i think it is important. aliens and criminal street gangs in general. one who has been convicted for which an element was in a criminal street gang. they have knowledge of the things provided. including the activities and maintain or increase his or her position. includes clear and convincing evidence. one that is in a criminal street gang. there is a waiver for the secretary. then there is a section on

deportation and then there are street gangs, actually, it is very good on this subject. because we discussed your amendment over the lunch break. because it is impossible for me to allow a street gang member the privilege that is inherent in some of these new rights that we are granted. but i think the bill is part of this.

>> the straw purchases of guns, i guess the problem of gains runs in different ways. whether it is immigration or guns. >> i would like to close. >> i would just like to speak weekly. the notion of the ranking member is a good one. it has more to do with how it would be implemented. i worry that the determination of this would be case-by-case. i think it would be highly unfair. i'm not sure how the community gets a ride that. i think it is a reasonable

manner. i think there is a really good amendment in there. but i can't see how it works as of yet. i would like to work with the member on this with a bipartisan way on the floor. at this point, what i don't understand in terms of administration -- i say this feeling very strongly. when i was the u.s. attorney, we demolished this and five are still serving life sentences to die in prison because of what they did. so i am keenly aware of how much damage this can do to our communities. i look forward to working with you. >> mr. chairman? >> i will never forget our case that we had when gang members

killed a little 8-year-old girl that was doing nothing but sitting at a table doing her homework or it would need to talk about where we need to go and i appreciate the work that everyone did to make sure that the gang members wouldn't come under any of these protections. i would love to work with you going forward. >> senator grassley? >> thank you. >> senator grassley will give a final word of his amendment. >> i think that both of the senators have made good points. just speaking as a member, we are open to improvements on the floor. i think that this can use people

all of these other issues that we talked about. we really don't think that this bill is perfect. we have worked hard on it or that it's always welcome to improvements on the floor and i hope that we can come together. >> this is an important point. we have been a member and what kind of gang is it, as this under asked her do we have that, as i understand it, you basically get convicted to be a gang member and you therefore meet the standards are being sent to jail for that. the government should use that as a basis for a path to

citizenship. >> yes, if they could be deported or denied. >> well, we don't want to be denied legality. you would be deported flat out. we have a lot of people that say things about this. >> what it says is that -- the bill is admissible and the portable. >> you're right. i overstated.

>> this amendment goes further. we have the united states.

>> [no audio] i ask for the roll call vote.

[roll call]. >> senator, to you have it? >> i have an amendment from a while ago that would try to protect the existing employee from being

over and over because ownership of the building or it changed hands and i was not yet at this stage three every had bipartisan support so i did not call of that amendment. unfortunately this amendment is in the same situation with some degree that is astounding to me. we have had a considerable discussion about the need to project this country from dangerous criminals and terrorists and yet, if you want to buy a firearm in this country the background check does not test whether or not you are on the terrorist watch list. but those people are able legally to buy guns in this

country. we can have different views on a lot of issues but i am astounded there is any divergent views whether or not people on the terrorist watch list could be allowed to buy guns in this country and not be headed off by the background checks. i had hoped this to be fairly and noncontroversial but apparently it is and people are in favor of that but i cannot understand why. >> of the senator would yield because we did not close the gun show loophole to go to the gun show is that correct? >> they could or directly to a dealer because the terrorist watch list it disables people but we think it is okay for those people on the terrorist watch list

to buy again. >> will you deal for a question? >> i will not call up the amendment but i look forward to working with colleagues on the other side to make progress before the floor. >> million deal for a question please? >> i don't have an amendment pending at this point*. >> briefly before we go. >> there has been a suggestion made that the fbi database that is used to check gun purchases is somehow tied to the terrorist watch list and i would just ask the senator from rhode island, or the chairman whether in fact, that is true. that would be news to me. but the problem is the background check is not even tied to the mentally ill in the states across the country notwithstanding that

2008 law that we passed it whenever a affairs made to amend the law to provide greater incentives to the states but the majority leader decided to take the bill from the floor to deny us an opportunity. i would ask if he could states as the fact is a terrorist watch list is maintained by the fbi as a means to exclude suspected terrorists for purchasing firearms under current law? >> i know the guy follow the question. >> does the fbi background database include terrorist watch list information? >> i don't know but that would be the argument. >> you asked me to answer

your question. >> but that is not true. >> he is trying to answer. >> question is right now is that the stopper for somebody who comes and tries to buy a firearm? the answer to that as a understand it, and no. is not. the background check does not cross reference with the terrorist watch list so if you are on the terrorist watch list you can buy a gun in this country. i don't think there is a good reason why somebody who was on ballast should be allowed to buy a died in this country. i look forward to working with my colleagues to get us to that point*. >> before we go further, before we finish tonight and i will stay after refinish to carry on the colloquies on matters that are not before us, here

are some of the amendments on the republican side grassley grassley grassley. session session session session grassley grassley grassley grassley session session session lee grassley grassley grassley grassley grassley grassley grassley session session session session had to catch as catch had to catch session session session session lee lee en lee en lee. cornyn cornyn. and then half a dozen amendments. so let's get these done and then i will be glad to stay here later this evening and we can have whatever colloquies we want and with that up next is senator sessions.

you were out of the room earlier and glad to have you back because senator hatch's not here again so we will go to senator sessions. >> the problem has not gotten better with countries that refuse to take back the of lawful alien and we all agree that is unacceptable. it needs to be fixed but for some reason years and years have gone by we have not extend. mr. chairman and a made a technical correction so i often said -- offer the second degree amendment. >> without objection the amendment before the committee. >> the secretary has the authority to discontinue granting pieces that the night or delay something

that is ordered removed from the united states. but the thought is rarely, if ever used. somehow we don't successfully overcome that problem. because of the supreme court ruling verses davis and clark comment legal and illegal immigrants ordered removed cannot be detained for more than six months we're removal would not occur in the foreseeable future. close to 8,000 ordered removed have been released they do not want to go back to their own country maybe that is. assistant attorney a general johnson bet the as a refusal

of countries to repatriate the deaf man is now required with now molesters, murders and other dangerous aliens there now being set free in the united states'' and in 2011 with the associate director of vice and the removal operations period need to testify before the house that "some aliens may have to be released that has assaults, property damage, fraud, red-hot pop -- homicide, forgery homicide, forgery, kidnapping , a controlled substances, and sexual offenses. those aliens detained after a determination that there

is no significant likelihood of removal because the home country will not accept them may remain in detention based on the determination that the alien is especially dangerous on the specific circumstances. also the refusals or delays that will allow them to release the individuals. they have no right to be here they need to be deported and country's food participate with us in the entry/exit visa system worked and under a commitment to take back those we deport. >> will you yield senator? >> but to understand correctly under the decision by the supreme court, is someone who is here illegally commits a crime but then serves the president -- president

sentence for that crime, once that time has ended, they can prolong there be detained by immigration authorities even though they are illegal and may have been convicted of a crime. because the home country will not take them back. >> they can be. >> they cannot be held more than six months if it is with rape or assault or jury tuning we will deport them back to do their home -- from country and they said the they serve their time you cannot keep them in jail but you can only keep them six months aren't oleanders special circumstances. said the problem is the countries are not taking

them back and they should do that as part of the understood international relationships around the world that it requires to take people back when they are deported. over two dozen countries to give examples that are a problem china was one of the worst offenders they should not be an offender but should be cooperating. the average time it took to issue travel documents to accept the return of a person convicted of a crime was 1,000 in 10 days. almost three years the longest delay ever. vietnam has 1700 outstanding requests to take back the

nationals jamaica has told hundred waiting we have issues to china over this subject but as of july 10th there is still by 200067 nationals waiting for repatriation. >> mr. chairman i think this is a good amendment but to except that i could go on at great length of different stories of "the boston globe" and so forth but i can tell you that you are getting anxious. i would just conclude by saying it -- this has to be

confronted senator specter before he left had an amendment to be very strong on this issue. it is something of a bipartisan issue and i would ask your support. >> first, let me say we have a very real problem and we should do something about it. the law is handcuffed so all these countries that want take back the people we want to deport we have no sanctions against them. that is absolutely right and it is wrong but the problem i have with my colleague's amendment his station is not effective but we were aware of this problem putting together our legislation it it puts to the part of it what senator sessions if they don't take we asking to be deported days to lose

their diplomatic peace is going right to government officials who were doing this for their own purpose. senator sessions amendment have a charge but that doesn't hurt the chinese government. it is the biggest offender of 12,000 people. it would also pay 5% more on their teeth to that doesn't affect the chinese government may be tour is summer travel to the united states but it you lose the diplomatic visa which they need so i urge my colleague who brings up a correct problem that needs solving that has no solution now to look like is to the point* of a very real problem and i

don't dispute than many to do something about it but to take away the diplomatic peace of the offending countries go right to the come -- could do that does it not just the citizenry. >> i failed to mention in that there is real constitutional questions about the ability of congress to constrict the president to communicate in international affairs and they have not done that today. so those fallback penalties would be helpful. >> i would like to propose a solution. so let's add to the bill if this doesn't work for those constitutional reasons and we think it will, we will

use your solution? >> that sounds like a fair solution. and i would note you've got to have a will to make this happen in our government already has the authority and powers to fix it but it is slow to use those powers. thank you. >> we will put together an amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn? >> i withdraw the amendment. >> we might get done before 11:00 tonight. i appreciate the cooperation of everybody. next is senator franken. >> on december 12th, december 12th, 2006, immig ration and customs enforcement carried out actions from california, iowa, nebraska ca, rn

texas, utah resting 1500 immigrants. that evening a second grader came home from school to find his year-old brother alone and his parents gone. the child stayed home from school for one week to take care of his brother not knowing what had happened to his parents. this is a second grader taking care of a tyrol for one week not knowing what had happened to their parents. the same day in post fell many were detained were too scared to tell eyes they had kids at home. one of them was the mother of a three month-old infant who was nursing. it took several days for the infant to be reunited with his mother. and logan utah, children or stranded at local schools because no parents were

available to pick them up and nobody had told the school let alone the children run have been to. it still the ports 100 thousands of citizens children each year but unfortunately we don't have the with the enforcement actions i am proud to offer the bipartisan amendment that would build on existing bush and obama policies to protect children with enforcement actions. my amendment would do five things. one. it to let the parents make a phone call to arrange for the care of their children. number two, it requires ice to consider the best interest of children in detention and to make sure

it allows parents to purchase a pate in family court proceedings the rise of disaster capitalism" there kids' future. six, if the parents are deported lets the fund the -- chordate the prison venture is co-sponsored rise centners grassley, koontz, a faith of coalition and in bet i but if the parents are sick and have a good hospital to be moved away

away, and things like that. i ask you to approach yes and it also like to bet what we're doing here in this committee for immigration is set public and streaming online and keeping everything that we have here and on the internet and we're way beyond was united states senators do but what do we do for immigration? we are as a people and as a country. but what theat

minnesota has done with this it goes to what we are as a people and as a country to all who claim respect for family values and would it means a cruz the core of what we are as a country. i would hope there betty would support it to. call -- now i would like a roll call. [roll call]

>> the next. >> mr. chairman as my friend from minnesota wrote may be amenable. >> with that objection. mr. chairman i b add but let the clerk know they will be added. senator lee remember i called up the amendment have the second degree to perfect the first. >> it is without objection the second degree amendment to be adopted so to leave

them as amended by the second degree is. >> one of the cornerstones of this bill is the e-verify program that is designed to provide enhanced projection which is the more security pieces i commend the gang of 8 for its hard work with their provisions but there are still some significant and weaknesses to that program that lead to potentially open to some abuse by but for those documents to prove feet for

those seeking employment and it knowingly you use fraudulent documents and that would imprint -- give five years for violations of the provision. i think it is then sent -- insightful behavior to insure and but as far as documents and use material for fraudulent activities that those set by the program. i strongly ears my colleagues but today but we saw were fraudulent documents that were a thing of the past but should bobby and i support with the

amendment from the senator from utah. >> mr. chairman sir and they want to prevent to have penalties for those who'd try to forge documents and we have said the proposal is >> they have not treated as in one week if it is a common-sense move to cut down to those who try to use the system? >> host: