overseas enact. >> about 50,000. .. one of the issues i heard raised when you were being asked questions by senator mccaul skill the issue of the $102 billion present overseas you

have now. the idea of repatriotization. you have said that you would be willing to pay some rate as we look at tax reform, what do you think is the rate thinking not only of apple but multinational corporations around the world. if we do tax reform. let's say we simplify the code so deductions are eliminated and we take that and pour that in to reducing the rate, what rate do you think we have to be at if we want to be competitive in terms of making sure we have investment here? i think the rate on the u.s. sales, in my judgment, for morse of the studies i have seen would need to be in the mid 20s as the expenditure are dropped out. in term of bringing back the rate of earnings, i think to a

huge number of companies to do that single digit number. by doing that you wind up in a revenue neutral situation. some companies may be a bit more. i think we would be one of those. other companies would pay less. i think more important than the tax, it would be great for growth in this country and that's the reason i feel so adamant about doing this. >> what would it do. sinned it,let say you're building a data center. you're building a new facility here. right now that money overseas you can't use that to invest in plant facilities here. is that right? >> that's correct. we can't use our overseas cash to make any investments in the united states. >> if you are in our position, and thinking about tax policy and making sure that our country

remains competitive how important do you think it to change the tax code to ensure it remains the best place. i'm sure there are many advantages. you're not the only corporation that has significant money overseas right now that we would like to see come back here. what do you think it would do in term of our economy. >> i think it's vital to do. i think it's great for america to do. i think it would have a much stronger economy if we did that. i think it would create job and increase investment. so i hope -- i put my weighted force behind it. >> if we create more jobs, is that more taxes that can be collected here as well in term of thinking about the fiscal state of the country? >> it is. i think that's a very excellent point.

all ships rise in the tide. >> right. ease specially with the unemployment rate right now. i want to ask you about the issue of tax reform, the issue of territorial rate. how important is it that as we go forward hopefully we will on a bipartisan basis, to reform the code to really create a better dynamic simpler, lower rate for investment here that a component of that be a territorial rate? there's been some discussion around here about not having a territorial rate. >> i think the us is advantaged if more capital moves in to the country. because it would be -- it would really strengthen our economy significantly. and so i think there has to be -- i don't propose zero. i think it has to be a reasonable tax on doing so. and some people refer to the territory. some refer to it as hybrid. i've heard different

terminology. apple doesn't support a temporary tax holiday. we they tax code needs to be comprehensively reformed for a long period of time. >> if we create a temporary tax holiday, which we have done in the past. don't we just perpetuate the situation in meaning it may have a short term. it doesn't encourage long-term investment. >> i think it's important for business to be predictable, and a permanent change to me is better than a short term tax holiday. >> i actually have a question on a unrelated topic, and to the tax issue today. but can you tell us when you think about you were talking -- you talk about the advantage of, for example, for being in the country. one i view significantly as intelligent yule property protections of this country. which i know are very significant to you as a technology company.

you have faced significant challenges in china. so what would be -- can you tell me what the challenges are? and thinking about intellectual property protection certainly is an advantage the united has, how do we address this with the international partners? >> we actually faced more significant areas in other countries. other than china. >> the reason i raise china. i heard the story about the knockoff apple store. please speak to other country as well. >> that has been an issue. it's clearly been an issue. i think that the u.s. court system is currently structured in such a way that it's very difficult to get the protection of technology company needs because our cycles are very

fast. when the cycles are very fast in the court system is very long, the foreign competitor or even competitors in the united states can quickly take certain i.t. and use it and should ship products with it and on to the next product before the court system rules. so i actually think that we require much more -- in this country as well, and i would love to see conversation between countries to strengthen i.t. for us, our intellectual property is so important to our company, and i would love the system to be strengthened in order protect it. >> i think all of -- thank you for being here. i appreciate it.

>> thank you. >> thank you, senator ayotte. senator portman? >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. i just left the finance committing on the irs to talk about the tax reform and not just tax administration. but this hearing is important because it's talking about a specific provision of our international tax resumes that allows u.s. companies to effectively take ip rights created here in the u.s. to foreign jurisdictions. some by means of cost sharing. some through other agreements. i agree with you, mr. chairman, and the ranking member, we need address the issue. i totally disagree that we ought to do it through picking out specific tax loophole or preferences. we have to reform the code. if we don't that, our companies will continue to do uncompetitive. you think about it. we have an uncompetitive tax system now. we're competing with one mind our back. we are taking certain refer and

they makes feel better in effect it makes it less. now 35%. we are looking at several decades of tax policy that is ain't kuwaited and came up with the times. i have a proposal to do that. it's revenue neutral. there are other ideas out. the president talked about it. he said in the february 2012 he believes it ought to be lowered and reinvested. when you get rid of the tax preferences. there's a lot of commonality where the senator back cuss bachus is, hatch, congressman and the ways & means committee

and finance committee are working together. that's the way to approach it. 80 percent of the world. that's what apple does. what a lot of companies to do. it puts our company at the disadvantage. you pay the tax rate of the company you are operating in, plus you pay the u.s. tax when the income is brought home. other is tax credit. some jurisdictions like ireland taxes so low you don't get a credit. it's complicated to go through the process. in effect, it puts, again, in a noncompetitive position. almost all of our industrial competitors shifted to a territorial-type system including u.k., france, germany, japan. when you look at the oecd we have 26 of the 25 countries move

to the system. i think that's the right way to go. they don't tax active business income beyond the borders and the businesses are more competitive internationally as a result. so the u.s. penalty for earnings resulted in the somewhere, mr. chairman, between $1.5 and $2 trillion being locked upoverseas. that means the money is being deployed for r&d overseas for putting factory oversea that's could be here. i think we have to move, and we have to move quickly. no other nation in the world proposes a high barrier. no other one. every one of them reformed the tax code since we have in 1986. every one of them. the corporate and international tax codes have been reformed. they didn't just lower the rate. canada just lowered theres from 16 to 15.5%. our rate is the highest in the

world. they reformed the code to make it more competitive. we have to do this. if we don't, we continue to lose opportunity. i think our guiding principle should be how to we create competitiveness so we can win customers overseas. tightening rules related to source of ip income. and chairman proposed it's important do. do it in a context of comp hennive proposal. i know, they want to answer that you do a lot of sales overseas. senator johnson 60% of the revenue yoafer overseas. is that accurate? >> yes. how many jobs are does that represent. in total we have created or support 600,000 u.s. jobs. it's dpiflt -- difficult to

allocate a certain percentage. we're to able to invest more. we sell our products around the world. >> it would be tens of thousands of jobs that are here because of your sales overseas. they powered our company, yes. i would suggest you come up with the number. i know, it's not easy. it's probably 40 percent of the work force. something like that. in the united states. and it's a huge boom to us. again, we want to you to sell stuff overseas. it creates jobs in america. it would it be fair to say that the biggest competitive globally is samsung? >> they are certainly one of them, yes. >> so samsung would be a major competitor. >> yes, sir. >> and is it a american company? >> korean company. tax rate of 24% which is lower than the u.s. tax rate. they have a lower tax rate

there. based on public financial statement. out of 56d billion. they were about $9 billion out of 2-8d wl in global pretax earnings coming out to 14 percent. same for both companies. is that consistent with your estimate of apple's rate and what you know about samsung's rate? >> senator, yes. that was apple's global cash tax rate last year. we believe it will be a few points higher this year. >> okay. let be concerned and say it's going to be the same. all the tax planning resulted last year in nothing more than the same as the main foreign competitor. is that accurate? >> yes.

>> senator, yes. one difn. -- difference. >> sam sog is able to move it back. >> i'm getting to that. so i would say the an is it's worst for apple. they can't bring the money home. you think about it it. it's partly the fact they can't bring it home. the investment options are limited. your investment options are more limited. how much money does apple spend on tax compliance efforts? i don't have the exact figure. t a lot. i suggest you get the number. i would like it know how bad the tax system is. i'm a recovering lawyer myself. you don't need more tax lawyers. you need more engineers and innovators and keep america on the cutting edge and, you know, your products are great already. they could be greater if you have fewer lawyers and more

engineers probably. how big is your tax department? >> it's approximately three dozen people around the world, and we have a couple of dozen additional resources through our shared service center in austin, singapore, we do have some personnel in shanghai. >> i imagine it's more than three dozen plus the folks. you hire a lot of law firms too. >> yes. there's a lot of outside help as well. >> yeah. >> and if you could encourage peter to help me out with more people, that would be appreciated. >> senator. -- . >> we want to reform the tax code so you don't have to mess it. >> i'm sorry. >> if i could, the tax return i sign each year in the united is two feet tall or greater, and we are under continuous examination and much of the effort this a phil spoke about specially --

internationally and the outside advisers deals with the continuous examination. we very much support a simplified code. >> you have high tax compline cost. you can't bring your money home so you can't invest it. what would codo. >> it won't be helpful. that's what some are advocating today. would you like to be able to cut your tax compliance cost and invest more in the productive uses? >> yes. definitely. >> no offense. let me summarize by saying i appreciate the hearing today. none of us decide a tax code with them engaging in the tax planning efforts. not to achieve some windfall to

achieve partive and a roughly level playing field. not including the cost of compliance and not including the disadvantage and not being able to bring the money home. i don't think the solution is to take the margin or go backwards to make it harder to compete. i think we should take the president on up on the offer to dot corporate tax reform. the chairman of the ways and moos committee said they want to do it. it's bipartisan. i hope the hearing will help us move forward the goal. >> thank you. of course you bring the profit home. you bring them home from south america, don't you? >> i don't know the . >> you haven't tran forked your intellectual property for that geography. just the rest of the world. owner the americas. >> the economic transfer for europe is in ireland, yes. >> i'm saying you bring the

profits home from your sales in south america, don't you? >> i would guess there is some cash in south america. i don't know, sir. >> well, your transfer agreement relative to the intellectual property is the rest of the world outside of the americas; is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> all right. so the're part of the world that are not covered by the transfer of intellectual property which is the creator of profits, that is your golden goose that you shifted that golden goose except for the americas to ireland. you shifted it to three companies that don't pay taxes in ireland. okay. they don't exist for tax purposes in term of income tax. you shifted your intellectual property. that's your choice. you did that if this a tran for price agreement. you didn't shift the intellectual property however, as i understand it.

to as far as as sales and the america z is concerned. is that right? >> the economic right to . >> the economic right. shorthand the economic right to the intellectual property was not transferred as far as the americas is concerned. >> the economic right to the intellectual property for distribution in the americas is owned by apple, inc. they are owned by a, si and aoe. >> all right. to an my question directly. they were not transferred as far as the americans are concerned. they belong to the home company apple inc. is that correct? >> yes. >> the profits that result in the americas outside the united states you pay income taxes on here? you bring them back here to the united; is that correct? as far as the americans are concerned. >> there's a selling profit in

canada and brazil and in mexico. and yes, any residual profit is stowmght tax. >> you bringing the profits home. i would characterize it as apple inc. is generating the profit. >> they are generating the profit through the intelligent yule property in europe and they tattoo. i'm talk about the profit in the company are brought home. is that correct. in dan, mexico, the ones you mentioned. they are brought home. i would characterize the profit are generate bid the u.s. company. so i would not say that are brought home. they learned by. al ink inc. >> they coupe l keep the economic rights; right? >> it has, yes. that agreement is apple

agreement. people sign it all work for apple. >> it's between two related parties. >> as i understand. they all work for apple, don't they? >> is there any dpowt of your mind that apple controls the agreement and can write it the way it wants to write it? apple inc.? >> i don't think that's the standard. the standard is. >> is that arm's length? >> are you suggesting that's an arm's length agreement. the apple of the signatory. >> i would, yes. it's evidence by parties at arm's length enter to joint development arrangement all the time. >> who ion signed that agreement? three parties; right? >> party's at arm's length enter to joint development arrangement all the time. the u.s. treasury department on three separate occasions and even the u.s. congress has approved cost sharing as evidence by arm's length behavior. >> i'm asking you. was apple in control -- apple

inc.'s employee in control of the agreement? it's a simple question? >> chairman -- . >> do they all work for apple inc.? >> they all do. they all work for apple inc.? and i think we ought to be able to try to a straight an on this. in term of the cost share agreement which shifted the economic right the intellectual property shifted the economic rights these are the crown jewels of apple inc. they were shifted to the irish companies in an agreement signed by three people all of whom work for apple. that's factual the case. it's not say i'm wrong. now, i would just . >> you stick with your characterization. i disagree with your characterization. you signed the agreement in 2008 did you? >> yes. >> don't you work for apple? >> i do. i think there's are important contacts. >> i want to get the facts out and call on you for the

context. mr. cook, you signed that agreement, did you not 2008? >> i signed the 2008 agreement, yes. >> and you were working for apple at that time? >> i've been working for apple for fifteen years, sir. and the other person who signed it sibl the mr. in 2008 it was the treasurer for apple? >> i'm not sure. i don't have the agreement in front of me. okay. you know? >> yes. he's our treasurer. he was then? >> yeah. >> three people working for apple signed the agreement. the agreement shifted the economic right in your crown jewels to three irish company and you own and control. >> senator. i respectfully disagree . >> you said you own and control them earlier this morning. let me finish my question. if you don't agree you own and control them. you can stop me. you agreed this morning you support them. i'm relying on your testimony. so now you tran for, you shift

and, by the way, when you said you shifted nothing, mr. cook i couldn't disagree more of course you shifted something. the economic rights. you shifted to the three companies. in an agreement. i'm not saying it was legal or illegal. i'm saying you shifted the economic rights to the most valuable thing you own intellectual property. the thing that produces the profit. you shifted to those three irish corporations. which you own. now the profit about 70% of the profit worldwide now end up with at the three irish corporation. that's the facts. and now those profits are abroad and when one of my colleagues said you can't bring it home. of course you can. if you pay the tax it would be owing on them if you brought them home. of course you can bring them home. you bring home the private from mexico and canada and south

america. the only reason you are not bringing them home is because they were transferred to companies in the three irish companies. that's the reason why they're there. it's your judgment, your decision, i'm not saying you're make the wrong decision. it's your decision not to bring those profits home. and so $100 billion plus is now stashed away in the three irish companies. that control -- that you control but nonetheless it's in their legal name. the question is whether you bring them home? you told us in one place, i believe, mr. cook. you don't intend to bring those monies home unless the tax rates are reduced. is that correct?

>> i don't remember saying that. >> is it true? >> i said i don't remember saying that. >> i'm say is it true you're not going to bring them home unless we reduce our tax rates? >> i have no current plan to bring them back at the current tax rate. >> is that the same way unless we reduce the tax rates you're not bringing them home. is that the same way? >> no. i don't think it's the same, sir. >> how is it different. >> your comment sounds like it's -- i'm not projecting what i'm going to do forever. >> you're not -- it's your intent to bring them home unless we reduce the tax rate. is that correct? >> i have no current plan to go so at the current tack rate. you have an agreement that shifts the economic right in to

the most valuable thing you have to three irish companies that pay no taxes. that's the shift. that's the golden goose right there. that's your crown jewels. that's your intellectual property. you have to right to do that just like you had a right not to shift the intellectual property for mexico, can can, and south america. you decided not to do it there. apple is the going to pay the taxes on the income for the parts of the world except for where two-thirds of the profits are created roughly. that's by the rest of the world that you transferred the economic rights to. you have profits going now. say we have $100 billion in professional that are sitting there. that you say is the current intent, not going pay the taxes

on them. you don't think you need pay taxes on those. uation the taxes were shifted. the economic value shifted. >> we don't agree with the characteristickization. >> whachesz shifted to them? >> what was shifted to them in the agreement that the three people signed all of whom work for apple? >> it began in 1980. >> i know that. i'm talking about 2009. >> yeah. but senator, it began in 1980. >> we've been through the history. >> we have not changed since 1980. i think there's some very important context that gets to the essence of the agreement that began over thirty years ago. >> i understand. i want to talk about the agreement signed in 2008 and 2009. there was an agreement signed in

2008 and 2009. you signed that agreement in 2008. three apple employees signed that agreement in 2008. that did two things. shifted the economic right. the way shifted before thirty years ago and continued to shift the economic rights to three irish companies under your control, that don't pay taxes in the united states. >> i respectfully disagree with that. >> shift the economic rights? >> no. i -- that's not the way i would characterize it. >> what did it shift is. >> what it did beginning in 1980. >> did it shift it? >> beginning in 1980 -- [inaudible conversations] you have gone through that. i want to talk about the 2008 and 2009 agreement. did it shift anything? did it give rise to the irish companies. they get any rights in those . >> the continue continuation of the same rights they had thirty

years they cofunded. >> in 2008, you continued under apple's control totally under apple's control. i don't think we thought kid ourself about that. under apple's control 2008 and 2009 there's an gree. that is reached so called with a controlled corporation which you focused agreed this morning you control. under the agreement that continues an earlier arrangement that could have been changed, you didn't have to shift the profit in 2008. let not kids ourself.

apple's make this shift. again i'm not saying it's illegal. i'm not saying it's legal. i'm saying you made a decision. the shift the most of your crown jewels in terms of economically. value and rise that create the profited you knead to continue it in 2008 and 2009. >> we did that. beginning in 1980. that's the way we set up apple. we went to ireland and first wanted to begin to sell computers overseas. the result of continuing the twaig and 2009 is most of the profit worldwide are not in three irish companies that you

can control that don't pay taxes. everybody loves the ipad. i have one here. my granddaughter knows how to use it. all of it. >> thank you. it's a terrific instrument. people love it in canada and mexico and south america. those intellectual. the intellectual property wasn't transferred there. it's because of the way we set ourselves up over thirty years ago. we haven't changed. >> sinned as a result of the continuation that have process of 2008 and 2009 most of your profits that come from this brilliant intelligent yule

property which everybody i know applauds. a continuation of that -- most of them are sitting in three irish companies that don't pay taxes. that's the result. okay. you can defend it. that's the result. and folks, there's a huge drain as a result. you point out at accurately that 95% of the creativity that goes in to those products is in california. two-thirds of the profit are in ire land. and you made a decision, you have a right to do, not to bring that money home. you ought to be proud. >> all the profit from the products we sell in the united states . >> i know that.

>> pay taxes in the -- united states. >> i know nap and all the profit you make from your product that are sold in canada are taxed in the united states. and all the profits that are sold that are produced from product that you sell in mexico and argue argentina and south america. all of those profits you pay taxes on in the united states. you made a decision. you sign an agreement that continues an earlier agreement. you sign two agreements in 2008 and 2009 most of the profit worldwide are not taxed. we are proud of you being ab american company. we're glad you're where you're at. the result of arrangement you continued is that most of the

profit is where we describe all morning. in ireland. in the comeaps that don't exist anywhere except on the water. of course we have got change it. of course we have to change this system. in order to change it, i have to understand it. not deny it. we have to understand what is going on. with a is going on is a huge loss of revenue for the united states we have got these corporations and you're the biggest one that are able to shift profits to places where you and american company don't pay tax on it. that's where we're at. we better understand that if we going to correct it. that's our purpose here today. is to shed a light on that. and so i hope that purpose has

been achieved. we can't continue a system, we cannot -- i say this from the bottom of my heart, we can't continue a system where the company, a multinational company is phenomly successful as yours and deservedly so. can make a decision sitting down in 2008 and 2009 as to where the profits are going to flow. you have r&d tax credit. you have the benefit of living in it country. you the protection of patent. with all of that, you're silting

there whether to continue a system where profits are shifted to a place where they are not available to the american tax man. in order for us to change the system, we have got to understand what is going on which is that you make a unilateral decision the company

shift the value to an to a tax haven which is what ireland is. i hope we have -- i know it's your intelligence here, and i applaud you for your constructive view, i do. i know, it's not easy to come before us. we agree we have to rewrite the law. it's important for us that we know what is going on. if we're going change it in a sensible way. and so we have to move to the third panel. i again, want to thank you. i want to comment -- commend your company for the great work you produce. with that.

we are going move to the third panel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] the house will vote on a bill that would approve the project. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this is the parlor. this is the way it looked during his 1880 campaign. it was indeed both the formal parlor and family room served as

both. james spend a lot of time with their children. they lost two children to infancy, e liz the children died before the family moved here. their five children all had the benefit of having two very intelligent parents. who strongly believed in education. books are very important them. and their children love to read adds well. they would sit by the fireplace and read to each other. it was one of their favorite activity. we're here in the family dining room, the center of the table is the interesting art piece. it actually won an award at the philadelphia centennial. mrs. garfield absolutely adored her time at the exhibition. and she would write pages and pages of what she saw at the site.

so a lot of people think of mrs. garfield as artistic lady. she was very intelligent. loved the sciences. tune in monday for our next program. all your experience in boston college none is more meaningful, of course, than the education you have received here. you see education is transformational. it literally changes lives. that is why people work so hard to become educate. that is why education has always been the key to the american dreams. as john f kennedy once said all of us don't have equal talent. but all of us should have an

equal opportunity to go development our talent. for the next two weengdz you hear stories for a new graduating class. friday at 8:00 and saturday at ku8 30 p.m. eastern. irs commissioner was on capitol hill today apping question about the targeting of conserving group applying for tax exempt status. here is part of the hearing from finance committee chairman max bachus and warren hatch. >> a couple of questions, first, mr. miller. essentially significant action

taken. given outrage use this conduct is. why wasn't more definitive action taken? >> i -- i'm sorry. i don't believe that i was aware at the time that it happened. i first became aware of this in may of 2012. >> you were around during the time. >> yeah. in june of 2011, i don't believe i was aware of this.

>> there's no indication, i think you have to ask the inspector general that others knew at the time. >> i'm sorry. you're acting, you know, the irs -- [inaudible] head of irs who did know. i mean, come on. you read the report. you were acting commissioner. you are commissioner. come on. if you don't know it's like somebody isn't doing their job. so who knew? why wasn't more direct action taken first, you know, when the terms were discovered right away? and a second chance, a second chance after the same activity started again in jab of 2012, incredibly starting again, you know, they stop for awhile and went back again. i can't believe it, frankly.

why wasn't more firm action taken by people either the commissioner himself or by people at the top? >> it's outrageous. any person can figure thought unacceptable conduct. mr. miller? >> again, all i can say i was unaware of the time it happened. when i found out in may, i took action. >> what action can d you take? >> i was briefed on after sending a group to take a look at the cases in may -- they reported back to me in may of 2012, essentially much of what had transpired and shown in the ig report that the cases were languishing that a list was utilized. that letters have gone out that were much more broad than they should be.

at that point, we already taken care of letters because they come up and this is how we knew something was going on. i asked for a review. we then trained our folks who held workshops to ensure that i asked for the cases to looked at and grouped in a fashion that those who look like they should be approve were approved. those that look like they need some work got the work. and those that needed further development got that development. so we took action on that. i also, at that time, i was aware that they were working on this. i took intermediate action. we transferred and reassigned individual who was involved in the letters. and i asked that the person who i believed at the time of the responsible for the listing that oral councilling occur. at that time the listing process

. >> all right. i appreciate that. this committee is -- sending any questions to you and others to try to get the an to some of these questions. we're not going get to the definitive answers in the moment. it's clear. the deeper question is how did the culture -- what created the culture of indifference to the american people? and such aggressive behavior? targeting certain groups. >> what caused the culture to develop? what did you do about correcting that culture? if you were aware of it. either one of you? i'll start with you. sure. during my time at the irs, i believed an i articulated that the irs needed to be a nonpolitical, nonpart dna -- . >> how did it happen? >> i think that there's a set of rules built in to the system.

there's law and education of people that i think the vast majority of the irs employees understand that. >> how did that -- what conditions cause that? my time is expiring here. it already has, frankly. if you is can very quickly how did it happen? >> i can't say that i know that answer. i am six months out. >> you have some sense. you were commissionerrer in for a number of years. >> i'm six months out of office. why left the ig was looking in to this to gather the fact the. i had the benefit of reading the report, and that's, you know, a full accounting of facts i have at point. i don't think i can an that question. >>. >> i'm disappointed. you had time to think about this. you certainly have more thoughts than that. >> on two different occasions my colleagues and i wrote letters

to you, mr. shulman. we ask about selective enforcement in request for donor information. we write again on june 18th to request more information about the irs's practice of -- even handed and transparent marijuana -- i received from the irs for anything but transparent. the irs responded to these two letters in april 26, 2012 in september 11, 2012 both of these responses were signed by you mr. miller. they didn't disclose that the irs had any reason to believe it had improperly targeted tea party or other conservative

organizations or improperly asked for considerable donor -- tea party and other conservative organizes. we know by june 2012 at the latest lo wees was aware that irs examer issued a, quote be on the lookout unquote listing regard are tea party and other organizations. we know that on may 30th, 2012. about the join gone audit in the practices. to this day you have not corrected your testimony oven though you know that the irs was

inappropriately screening tea party organizations. why are you not come forward before today to correct a record and acknowledge there was inappropriate screening occurring in the irs? the organization? you headed? >> let me answer a few things. one is the full set of facts around the circumstances came out last week in the report. which i've read. until that point, i didn't have a full set of facts. you knew it was going on. why didn't you let us know? >> what i knew was not the full set of facts in the report. what i knew sometime in the spring in 2012 of that there was a list being used, knew that the board tea party was on the list. didn't know what other words

were on the list. didn't know the scope and severity of this. department know the groups that were pulled in. groups would have been pulled in anyway. internal revenue service to make sure the matter is being looked at by the inspector general. >> we sent you letters. inquiring about this. you said it correct in the record. you should have done it long before today. that's the point i'm making. mr. miller, your signature is both on the responses that i received from the irs. nowhere did you indicate that the irs was improperly selecting tea party organizations for extra scrutiny. nowhere in your responses did you indicate that the you knew the irs was asking improper questions about donor

contributions. you sat on the guilty knowledge. mr. george stated he briefed you on may 3rd, 2012. about the audit. we know you were aware of it. at the time that you responded to my second letter, not both. you didn't mention any responses. that's a lie by omission. there's no question in my mind. they were guilty of horrible of customer sf. what we learned about the irs in recent days goes far beyond customer service.

failing to tell us what you knew about the exact subject we were asking about. why didn't you tell us? you should told us. >> my answer to the question i answered them truthfully. did i know about the list? yes. not on the first letter, by the way. because the timing i wouldn't have known for that. on the second letter we answered the questions, sir. frankly the concept of political motivation here. i didn't agree in may. i don't agree with that now. we were not politically motivated and targeting conservative groups. that's born out by the report.

you knew we have written to you. you had your letters. the commission e relied open you to answer our letters. why didn't you anthem? why didn't you tell us this information . >> you can watch thest are the hearing. live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.

the senate judiciary committee voted 13-5 to approve an immigration and border security board. including those dealing with visa for high skilled workers. and barring some immigrants from collecting means-tested. senator leahy chairs the session. >> we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. we can start. i'm not going to do an opening statement. i think senator senator grassley may have -- senator grassley is

first. go ahead. yield senator graysly. -- grass. >> if senator durbin or senator new york here. i have several questions. i'm going ask one in regard to health care, and this title. there's a lot of discussion about how about bill would incentivize employers to hire newly legalized persons rather than americans -- i think the bill rightly prohibits legalized individual from accessing health credits to buy health insurance. along with this, comes the notion that employers would be able to skirt the penalty if they don't cover these people on their health insurance. one of the sponsors of the bill said that the issues being discussed among the group of eight. i would like to know what the discussions are taking place on this point. how will the bill -- so two

questions. how will the bill ensure that those who are legalized don't get public benefits, but at the same time don't disincentivize employers to displace or give secondary preference to americans? and what changes is the group of eight contemplating on this matter? >> senator grassley, under the health care reform act, the creation of the insurance exchanges and effort to bring more people in to insured coverage that was clearly our goal. under this bill, i am just checking with the staff, there's an ambiguity, and you identified it. these rpi workers will not be entitled to the subsidize under the health care reform act.

so they're not getting a special helping hand for health insurance. it's my understanding they can purchase it without subsidize. that is the right. you asked the right question. what impact does it have on their employer? if the employer were dealing with just employees coming there are certain standards about health insurance offered to the employees. how much have to be covered whether they are full-time or part-time and the penalty if the employer fails to meet the requirement of the reform act. ..

>> okay, let's discuss it. [inaudible conversations] okay, we are going to take up the grassley bill 17.

>> there is a possibility that we could get done today. which i know that i said the senator and i and a few others -- we can do this. let's go to senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the requirement that law enforcement activity the amendment that i am offering and i'm not going to ask the vote on it, it has to do with the policy and the copy that is being applied as a result of the typical compromise that was reached by the group of eight we have forged a consensus. one element of that convinces has to do with what the presence requirement.

the blumenthal 15 would move that date to april 15, 2013 it was the date that this measure was filed. this expressed to the world with a requirements were, the standards that would be applied for the past to earn citizenship. this is the requirement for citizenship and what should be. to date is 2011. anything less than an arbitrary cutoff grade we all know that it frequently contains arbitrary cutoff that may seem arbitrary. but there is a need for scott. i respect simply between 2001

and april 17, 2013. those 400,000 or so people, it is an estimate regardless of the specific number that we know what grade we know it is in the hundred thousands. we are now trying to provide that historic opportunity for earn citizenship. as we move forward with these deliberations we shifted the cutoff date to april 13, 2017 were some point that is fair and

just and more expressive and faithful to the goals and ideals of this historic measures have. we must expand the number of people eligible for that path to citizenship. unfortunately, the current copy will leave us with families and individuals mr. chairman, i thank you for this opportunity to speak to this decision. >> you know, i expect that each one of us could probably come up with different cutoff dates.

>> this is the attitude that the senator takes that i find a great deal of this bill goes forward, we will continue to talk about it. >> thank you, senator. >> senator sessions, i understand senator grassley and

senator hatch are not here. number 30, is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> okay. >> the senator is recognized. >> okay, we have a vote about the earned income tax credit. it appears to me and it clearly allows the earned income tax credit check from the government, low income americans that qualify for it, to continue at an average of about $2000 per year. our colleagues who sponsored this legislation understand that there will be nowhere welfare type of system. it is not a text adduction, but an actual tax payment.

individuals are using this accounting procedure in lieu of a social security number and have been able to claim the child tax credit, secretary geithner's inspector general says the this is millions of people who think this tax credit we believe are not entitled to it. we make recommendations to the irs as to how they could have

addressed this and they have not taken sufficient action in our views to solve the problem. this is a problem that internally has been raised by the u.s. treasury department. it has been discussed with the irs and apparently they think that the current law does not allow them to block and insist on a social security number this includes identification numbers that contain errors and were accompanied by fraudulent documents.

it is suggested that by their own inspector general we had four other undocumented workers who don't live there. both of the workers claim that 20 children who lived outside the united did, they claim that 20 children lived in that residence and as a result, they sent the tax returns, totaling $29,000, six of those children had never visited the united states or live here.

if the opportunity is there, why not take advantage of the? that is what they said. i suppose that is a rational thought the payment of federal funds through the tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive. this is a quote from the inspector general and treasury department come in the payment of federal funds to the tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to reside in the united states without authorization, which contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives. in other words, we are incentivizing people illegally by giving them direct checks from the government through the

child tax credit. it is not a text adduction, but it director. most of the people who were here for not paying income tax. the treasury said that congress will fix this and change the law. it is estimated that would save $7.6 billion. a big problem out there.

>> mr. chairman, the senator from illinois and we met mr. chairman -- the senator from alabama. closing his statement, he made a very important point. debate does not apply to the 11 million people who would be seeking this probationary status, provisional status, they will be receiving social security numbers or it there is no bastion that they will go through the same process as the rest of america when it comes to qualifying for the child tax credit. on the issue of fraud, it is true that those who are operating with the individual taxpayer identification number. they need to submit the internal

revenue service and valid passport, to other forms of identification, such as civil birth certificate and current id. all the children that are claimed also have to have either a social security number or a number that they can use before they can qualify for their parents to receive the child tax credit. this system, when it comes to these people, it is also a system with verification that the social security system is. i don't argue with the senator. there is evidence of fraud in both categories. social security numbers and etc., and we should stop fraud in the categories are but to argue that it is the holders, those that don't have social security numbers, i don't think we have the evidence to show that. i'll be happy to answer question after i finish. here's the bottom line question that we need aspirin comes to the policy.

first, and we the we won't fund this program? of course not. second, do we want more children living in poverty in the united states of america. of course not. the child tax credit says that if you are low income as a family, we will help you take care of your children. we will give you a stipend, a tax credit, to take care of your children. instead of leaving a child with next-door neighbor, who may or may not be the best person to take care of them, they can find a place that is wholesome and safe. that is a good thing for the country any good public policy goal. with the truss rod and i think the finance committee should. it deals with the immigration question, which the senator from alabama conceded is not touched by the amendment. >> senator durbin, it happened differently from now. what is happening is that persons under a false social security name, they are illegally here.

this includes a thousand dollars per child and as a result of that, violating the law. the first thing that i would suggest to my colleagues is that we want to help people who have children in america. we have the child tax credit, which i have supported. but surely we can agree that after this bill passes and the amnesty occurs, and they are given a legal status, we shouldn't continue the policy of sending government benefits to

people in the future who enter illegally. i really believe this is a fundamental question of the will to deal with the legality. the first thing that you do is not benefit financially, people who come here legally. >> you know, so many times the steps that are taken. you know, with children, i am not about to vote for something which i think would harm children. >> let me finish. >> okay. >> this would deny the tax credit to numerous u.s. citizens. not just immigrants were present illegally. having people using their

individual identification number, they pay the payroll taxes as well as security. and also medicare taxes even though they don't receive the benefits of social security and medicare. things like what this amendment does, we are all against the idea of fraud. this includes low-wage worker families and their children. you know, there seems to be an attitude here that if somebody comes here as an immigrant, they must be trying to gain system. i totally reject that. i know so many extraordinary and hard-working people in my little state of vermont.

people i see in the grocery store, people that i see a church on sunday. you know though i'm walking on the street of my hometown. these are hard-working and law-abiding, very nice people. they make vermont a better state. i am just not going to vote for things -- those that somehow have the implication that we feel that they are here just because they want to break the law. now, i know so many law-abiding citizens. >> mr. chairman, if i could wrap up, please. >> about your finish. >> i appreciate the chairman's concern for our children. i would like to emphasize that this amendment, that would prohibit the rewarding of individuals who have entered the country illegally with government benefits.

if we don't do that, we can't agree on that. how can we ever have the people believe that we are willing to create a lawful system in the future. >> senator -- >> inspector general said this is a problem. >> senator for a question? >> yes. >> there are three different categories of workers we are talking about. those who are here legally with her social security number, those who are here and have declared them elves so they have a number that pays taxes, and those also who are working with her social security number. it seems to be the target of the

second category, which is paying taxes, it has a legal presence in the united states. saying that they are the problem. it strikes me as the third category that you should be focused on. >> very few people need the original intention. it is investors that come to america. that is who's supposed to be using it, fundamentally, the treasury department getting false social security numbers have assigned them because they can't process the matter if they are under the social security number or it so they have created this mechanism that the inspector general says is wrong. you know, i am amazed that we can't reach an agreement. mr. chairman, i would ask for the roll call.

>> in regards to massive fraud, that is not what we intend. there are many that claim these credits. we know that this is a very important credit for making under $21,000 per year. every penny counts for them. they are not getting rich by claiming his tax credit.

[inaudible] [inaudible question] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> thank you. >> amendment 20, a second degree amendment to clarify some of the text we met yet, we are talking about the second degree, it is before us as amended by the second degree. senator, it is all yours in this

amendment is very simple. it would require dhs to collect demographic data from the rpi applicants such as the country from which they came an explanation of how they enter the united states. for example, do they overstay or enter the country illegally. it seems to me that the rpi applications are a gold mine of data. it includes the undocumented population, which would in warm a host of policy decisions in the future. it would be a shame not to collect this data. the data would be provided totally anonymously and that would be protected by the same privacy protection that applies to data collection. >> it is important for us to have this. and your money you have some

very clear private the protections. all of those in favor, please say so. >> okay. >> those opposed say no. okay, the yes votes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> senator grassley? >> now, i know that the members of the committee know that there is some judicial review. this is the amendment number 17. i know the members of this committee know that there is some judicial review in district court now with those who are in the immigration process. this bill greatly expands the

expansion and it is not as significant as what can happen as a result of the expanded. now people forever delaying deportation because of the ability to appeal. so i will go into some detail now. an example is the new rpi program, any individual applicant that is denied can be reviewed in any district court. and circuit courts are a country. applicants can challenge anything, with respect to their individual application and can appeal their case through the various levels of review at the department of homeland security or the federal court system. the bill also provides a manner for class action lawsuits to be filed by applicants. there is already a review process within homeland security. this bill codify that. no problem with that.

if an applicant is denied, he has a right to appeal to the administrative appeals unit within the department for a complete new review of application. so their art exists an avenue for immigrants to have the initial determination and review. two levels of review of the department. they are more than adequate for these kind of cases. this includes the federal court. the bill further treats the programs as a right rather than a discretionary benefit, just like you have the sole right to come to this country. that was stated by an administrative official recently. where is it in the constitution, any place around the world. to come to america. it doesn't state that the department has the authority to deny an applicant in the exercise of discretion as is

common for many forms of immigration relief. under this bill, the federal courts are inundated with review for the secretary, denying even a small portion of the millions of applicants that will be wild or other visa programs. in fact, now, this gets to the cost of the taxpayers. the government organization telling us what impact various pieces of legislation have on court costs. it expresses serious concern about the increased workload that this bill would create for the federal court system. the letter stated that it would have serious resource implications for the federal courts. in part because the judicial review provisions exist. we should not expand the

jurisdiction of the federal courts to review potentially all of these individual applications without knowing first how this broad expansion will impact the caseload. moreover, according to the bill, an undocumented immigrant who applies under the rpi program cannot be removed from the country order be detained for so so long as he has an application pending with the department or federal courts. those immigrants who have filed a meritless application under the program, they could hold up the removal for many years. before the denial of these applications is final. the application will not be final until it went to both levels of administrative review at the department and the district and circuit court

review. the bill actually encourages meritless application. because they would have nothing to lose since they can't be removed until all levels of review our complete. in addition, the filing of a class action law suit throughout this country would create a delay and interfere in the reasonable administration of the program. national class-action could be certified and promote the throughout the country and this could impact any and all immigrants under the program and results in tying the system up a notch. the bill doesn't even require -- get this -- it does not fire exhausting administrative remedies in order to file a class action lawsuit. further it creates the denials of current forms of relief that

allow for very limited review. these include adjustment of status for marriage, employment, removal, criminal and fraud. so why do we need to change the current law? it already has some access to the courts. but why brought in the in the legislation. these cases would remain in the system for years they were allowed to be considered in the courts. my amendments provide that judicial review provides an application under the rpi or other visa programs. other matters are in the bill. department of homeland purity and their ability to administer the rpi and other visa programs, which should be tied up in a endless litigation. particularly, we know the problems of class action lawsuits. that is broadening the access

and who knows how many people are involved in one of those. i yield the floor. >> thank you, sir. >> is a amendment really gets to the basic element of our government that we learned in the first of its class. that is checks and balances. so there is a balance of power in our government. but what we want to do is reduce judicial review and decisions made by the executive branch of government. that is an extraordinary position to take. we have acknowledged that the balance in our government between the three branches is what has kept it democratic. and also moving in the right direction. we have a long list of organizations. they believe that we have put together in this bill a good

approach to review the decisions made on these cases where people are seeking to become part of the united states. if we are to take away this review, you were given in the pejorative term, democrats, the power to make decisions for review. assuming that perhaps they are all going in one direction, denying the people to become citizens, and maybe you don't want that reviewed. it could go in the other direction. what we've seen this bill is or ought to be somebody reviewing this make sure that this decision is consistent with the underlying law. when you restrict it to constitutional issues, the power is virtually renewed. two things this bill does. i know it it is something that we need to do quickly. this is assigned and nothing in this bill requires the district court, judicial review, based

solely on the ministry of record. it requires individuals to seek administrative review before going to court. therefore burning the courts if we can avoid it. includes the courts decision unless the individual can persuade the court that his or her case is strong enough to justify the state. so there is no automatic stay of removal. we may have to petition the court that they are going to her veil. also wires courts to defer the agency, although they are fired under the standards to defer to agency interpretations. i have urged my colleagues to vote no on the grassley amendment. judicial review is an important part of the balanced checks and balances and it should apply to this law as it does to virtually every other law that we review.

>> i don't have to give a speech in closing, but may i ask a question. i think it is very basic. senator durbin, all of a sudden, there is something wrong with the system that we have been using for decades. that is what you are saying. >> what? >> there has been some judicial review. >> no, i am saying that this bill continues judicial review. the judicial branch is monitoring this. >> it limits this. it is consistent with judicial review and it limited to the administrative record. there is no extraordinary opportunity for review. but there is review them in milan i think there should be. >> okay, let me discuss something. i think one of the things that sets us apart from other nations, the checks and balances. the senator from illinois mentioned this.

but it is amazing in history for a country to become this powerful, diverse, but remain a democracy. i think that is because of the checks and balances that we have very i have tried speak very little. but this is chairman of the senate judiciary committee. i am not prepared to start limiting my checks and balances. let me just tell you a story. when the soviet union broke up and there were these democracies, something that has been set back considerably under vladimir putin. a group of government officials -- they came to see me.

they say, is a true that in the united states, people are actually allowed to sue the government? and i said, yes, it happens all the time and then is it true that the government loses sometimes. i said yes, sometimes the government loses. when that happens, do you replace this? and i said no. like when the lightbulb goes on over someone's head. i said, no, that is our system. that is our judicial review. and if you want to be a real democracy, you have to protect the courts. it remains through the democracy. i want the checks and balances

very i will oppose it. >> okay. >> i would like to add a brief thing. because i understand were senator grassley is coming from. he. he is on appeals committee doesn't want to drag things out forever. senator durbin has outlined those. you can't just drag this on forever. but it's something egregious happens, you get to go to district court and not the court of appeals. it is very important to speed things up. the only other point i would make the incentive to file appeals is small. that is because the individual has no right to remain in the united states, pending the court's decision. unless the individual can persuade the court that their case is strong enough there. so the incentive for frivolous appeals declines under our belt.

>> okay, we do need to recognize the executive branch has certain powers. one of the things, for example, we know officials -- we know the law is clear. if they deny whatever country it is the right come to the united states, they are not able to i'll a lawsuit and take it to court. as senator grassley indicated, it is not a civil right, it is not a dear and he'd right under the constitution. therefore, we have provided reviews of administrative action. administrative action of our homeland security citizens and immigration service should be reviewed constantly by the united states congress and the chief executive of the united

states. the president. he has a responsibility to see those activities operating with what american people desire. but it is not focused on guaranteeing certain rights to people that like to enter here. the united states has a right to set the standard for that. so i think, mr. chairman, we do believe in rights and separations of power, but within immigration and a few other areas of law, a full appellate court process trade it has not been allowed. it is one of the executions of policies by the united states government. >> 10 seconds to make a point. >> okay, senator durbin, you know that i don't disagree with you with checks and balances.

what is so amusing about what you're talking about. checks and balances. elsewhere in this bill you have written power some of it isn't even revealed will. you were sitting there talking to me and i don't want to have a review. you can eventually get to the courts even under the existing law. i yield the floor. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

rococo. [roll call] >> okay, as indicated. the people think that i am mad. >> we now have senator feinstein bringing up number 13. without objection, the second degree is agreed to end it is amended by the second degree.

senator feinstein. >> thank you very much. let me begin with the second degree. the second degree simply resource to develop our of the counselor officials to deny a visa. let me give you one example of why that is important. and i have one example, two others that are student examples. he intended to train as a pilot along with other 9/11 hijackers. he applied for a student visa twice in the united states embassy in berlin. after the first interview, the counselor officials denied him administrative grounds. asking him to provide additional documentation, demonstrating his intent. he came back a second time. but the documentation he provided failed to convince the counselor officer of his intent and he was denied a student visa

under the authority addressed in my amendment. i think it is extraordinarily important that the counselor official who interviewed the student has the ability to deny or approve the visa. this restores that ability. the other is the dual intent. this essentially means that when a student goes before a counselor official, they cannot be denied a visa the student indicates that i may not want to return home. i may want to stay in the country and work in the country. and that is, without a lot of rhetoric, that is what it is. i believe that it is okay with the gang of eight. hopefully it will pass unanimously. >> is anyone else wish to speak

about this? >> with regard to the officials, these are individuals who are under a lot of pressure and they feel for our safety and trying to be nice to people coming in. when they have a problem, we need to encourage them to be able to say no with confidence that they are doing the right thing. >> all of those in favor, please vote. >> with this bill, is this part of the second? >> that's right, it removes the authority. i beg your pardon? >> on this bill. >> okay. >> oh, it is in this one. i beg your pardon. the grant program is also here. what this is is $50 million provided in the bill for grant program to help people comply with the law. this extended to the

agricultural program carried by our bill. >> it is all within the same amount. >> just one point, mr. chairman. >> okay. >> this will be paid for out of the pool from the fines and fees that companies pay. so we will not at any cost to the budget or the deficit. >> okay. is there any further discussion? all those in favor of the amendment, please say yes. all those opposed please say no. the yes votes you have it. okay, that finishes what i believe is all the amendments. senator cornyn, you have a

second? you have an amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. i thank you very much. >> the second degree to this amendment. >> okay. >> i am encouraged, mr. chairman, by the staff of this conference. we are working on something that will be agreeable. let me just lay out for my colleagues what this amendment would do. and just like you, others on this committee, i have been a a fan of rights since i was attorney general of texas. it is often said crime victims of the only unwilling participants in the kernel justice system, and i agree with that. we need to take the rights when considering legislation that has

the potential to affect the lives and we victimization. as we discussed yesterday, this legislation would permit the secretary of the department of homeland security to wave the misdemeanor bar in the underlying bill and allowing someone to obtain provisional status despite the fact that they have committed a number of misdemeanor offenses. yesterday we talked about some of those coming putting domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, assault, violation of protection order under the violence against women act and driving while intoxicated. this would have the reentry of those who believe committed a crime in the united states. those who were deported and currently living outside the

united states. it would be subject to this given this is homeland security department and be allowed to obtain provisional status. as we know, the victims of the crimes committed by these individuals should be taken into account. the peace of mind of the upper perhaps begin to obtain by the knowledge by the perpetrator of the crime can no longer do them harm. this would allow criminals to return to the united states without further notice or consultation with a crime victim. that is deeply disrespectful of their rights and it is insulting and potentially dangerous to the victims of crime. this would require the secretary of the department of homeland security to notify and consult with victims that when they seek

to reenter the united states with legal status -- my second degree amendment makes perfect nations and clarifies the department of homeland security should work with the prosecuting agency to notify victims and provides protection to victims, ensuring that they do not suffer adverse immigration enforcement actions as a result come forward. it is similar and we provide the victims of human trafficking as they cooperate with law enforcement authorities. some groups have characterized this amendment is a poison pill. it is baffling to me. but i'm comforted by the knowledge that the center for victims of crime support this amendment and i would ask this letter of support be made part of the record.

>> the senator is modifying this amendment. is that correct? >> we have offered a second degree amendment. >> i'm told that it is acceptable for some members. >> just so we know where we are. without objection, the senators amendment is modified by his second degree minute before us. senator klobuchar knows that i'm going to speak and then i will have a couple of comments to thank you, sir. there may be one more modification. but i wanted to say that i appreciate the changes that have been made and i support this amendment. i like the part about allowing the homeland security secretary to have information from victims and i think it can be very helpful in making a decision about whether any kind of a waiver should be granted. i think the senator and i come from prosecutor backgrounds and we understand the input and victims in the system and they

should be respected in the system. i really appreciate this amendment and i think it's a good one. i'm glad to support it. >> okay, i have a question. i understand that we are changing this from 90 to 60 days. >> that is acceptable to me. >> and we are clarifying that the victim cannot be found in cannot include the adjudication in the application. and this would make part of this. am i correct? >> determinist correct. >> with those modifications, i do not have objections. >> i think the modifications have really improved in this amendment read i plan on

supporting and. >> okay. >> i was going to say that i strongly support the amendment. i think it continues with this committee has been doing historically to give victims certain rights. it is important in that regard. >> senator kyl would be proud to have this for a long time. thank you for being a part of this. >> i just wanted to say that the senator from arizona is absolutely correct. the senator senator is one of the leaders on this issue about crime victims rights during his time in the senate. he made an imprint on that area and i'm sure that he would be proud of this improvement of the bell. i think you. >> okay, all those in favor of the amendment as amended, please say yes.

>> all those opposed please indicate so. yes votes do have it. did you have another amendment? >> we are talking about the finance committee. >> the democrats are finished. we have a stack of amendments on the republican side. >> if you will give me 60 seconds. >> to so people understand, we will do the amendment and then the senator has one or more amendments and senator cruz has amendments and we have other amendments as well. >> mr. chairman, i am ready whenever you are ready.

>> okay. >> senator from your next. >> i would like to call up the amendment and ask or consideration. >> thank you. >> this amendment deals with national security and public safety. we all believe that we must create a fair and workable immigration system and we need to make sure that law enforcement has the tools that they need to protect the united states and deter and detect fraud. as we found out on 9/11, the failure to share information can have lethal consequences and damage our national security in the process. under the current bill, homeland security officials would be prohibited from sharing critical information contained in the application of illegal immigrants who petition for

legal status. even if that information reveals critical evidence of terrorists or criminal activities. in other words, the language would prevent the department of homeland security from sharing information with national security and law enforcement agencies. we know that in 1986 the legislation that includes law enforcement information prevented individuals from pursuing criminal offenses that were serious. i could be wrong, but i do believe the senator from new york had a comment in "the new york times" some time ago about that being one of the mistakes which resulted in rampant fraud and the implementation of that. but to put it bluntly, the current ban on information sharing is harmful to public safety. i amendment would provide

legitimate confidentiality and includes law enforcement information contained in these projected applications once the ministry of appeals for the application have been exhausted. in other words, after the application has run its course, all appeals exhausted, that information sharing would kick in. it includes the rpi application that is requested as part of an investigation of violations of the laws of the united states. my amendment would give dhs tools to proactively and reactively prevent terrorist attacks and crimes. this is modeled after the confidentiality provisions in the violence against women act which allows the government to share these information committed in an application. the application for relief is denied and all opportunities

have been exhausted, i would ask my colleagues if this is good enough for the protection of victims of crime and why is it when an illegal immigrant is out of status. this would not discourage any eligible immigrants from coming forward and applying for legal status because it would only apply where a law enforcement agency has begun an investigation for the application in question that has been denied with all administrative appeals exhausted. there is no need for confidentiality covered by the amendment. it would already have been denied and the amendment would've already come forth. this does not include the compromise and it simply makes it workable.

..

when the sharing is u.s. national interests. i hope my colleagues will turn me in supporting this amendment. >> thank you. i think others wish to speak. i just think in the confidentiality, a lot of people don't know whether they're eligible for citizenship are not. the person who sold whatever they say can be used against you in a fat has a chilling effect. on this one has a lot of ways to find things. i'm not sure this is the best place to do it. we have a number of areas for confidentiality. i'm crazy hesitant, but i am not convinced. >> let me clarify one point, mr. chairman, that if you're called to uncheck comments. it would be right if the application is denied, not if it

is granted only after any appeals to the denial of the occasion are concluded. so went away with a separate operate to the prejudice of the individual in terms of their application. what he would do is allow the information to be shared for the purposes of rooting out fraud and adding on first and international security threats. >> if the senator would yield. i follows your argument and the point you just made is important only deals with denial cases. major argument based on questions of law-enforcement and national security i think as they can howling argument, the germanic goes further because your amendment also authorizes civil action. my question to you is this. let's assume that in the united states for 12 years and i'm

applying for rpa status. i've worked at many different jobs. i view social security numbers that may not ask as, maybe they weren't asked for. to prove that presents a qualification for rpi, i disclose my employers come the people who hired me, who may not have paid the minimum wage or anything at all. the question is, does the disclosure of information now accused against prior employers of those undocumented in the united states kamas about it they violated the law and the amount of any dictating the conditions of my work or whether they follow the proper i-9 required by law. are you opening up actions against employers of undocumented people? feedback that not being done. it would be available online person that tends to subpoena the information.

it would be subject to the standards that ordinarily prevail when it comes to a subpoena that might be served the information. the basic point is that 1986 there is massive fraud associated with that amnesty provision and what we try to do is avoid that going forward without purchasing the rights given under the legislation to people who apply for provisional status. the whole purpose is to root out fraud to identify criminal conduct our national security threats. >> you have a strong argument there. but look at page two, paragraph paragraph 3 could visually authorize civil violation in remainder of your amendment. you've gone beyond law enforcement and national security and in so doing you've opened a store that perhaps those who employ the undocumented are not subject to

civil, criminal liability. if that's not sure in 10 companies to be changed. >> the language is clear it applies to civil actions by the government. by law enforcement agency. >> if you haven't paid the minimum wage, is that a civil action for the government? >> given the massive amount of work federal government and agency has to do to implement this law, i can't imagine law-enforcement agencies are running down this rabbit trails. >> i wish he would take that the language. >> senator cornyn. >> it seems to me in reference to senator durbin's comments that if an investigation is ongoing, involving an employer who violated labor laws in a subpoena or request is made,

this could be made available. pemex perfectly good sense to me. i don't know why this information should be kept secret if it proves an employer whose violated the law and being investigated by the information shouldn't be made available. it doesn't suggest you should go through these rpi records to investigate employers. >> to tell the senator from alabama that its reading of this is correct. that's certainly the intention. this does not contemplate investigations of rpi applications per se. if there's an ongoing criminal or civil investigation by other authorities into fraud, criminal law violations our national security threats that is not maintained secret and be made

available for a lawfully appointed subpoena. >> senator cornyn, is to not put on your hat in the form of texas supreme court, is in a fundamental way need to be careful when we need to make a suggestion and law and stories and provide false documents and then we're going to steal those records and documents and never going to investigate it. absolutely home free. don't be a danger, would it not? >> to maintain confidentiality of applications for all purposes would be an invitation for fraud and corruption and potentially dangerous to the public safety and the national security of the united states. that's what i believe the

amendment is well taken. this demonic seminar, roll call vote on this. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] >> now and senator senator white house no one person.

[inaudible] >> the amendment is not agree to. next we have -- similarly, you have an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lee amendment number 10. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill is reported to require applicants for legal status to pay back taxes as a condition of achieving legal status. but the bill upon closer inspection requires those immigrants applying for legal status to pay only those back taxes that avert event quote, unquote assess such that if an immigrant who has worked illegally in the united states for 10 years in the irs has no tax records for the immigrants, then this bill would buy my

reading not require the immigrant to pay any back taxes at all. lee amendment number 10 amends the definition of applicable tax liability in the bill page 70 and 71 to include not just taxes assessed, but taxes of regardless of whether they've previously been assessed by the irs. we have a responsibility to inform the public about what the bill requires of those being given legal status and if an immigrant has worked illegally for 10 years in the united states under the table or false identity, there is no requirement that such work will pay those back taxes. and rpi applicant must pay only those taxes that have been assessed in this amendment will close that loophole. i urge my colleagues to support the event. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> normally would be concerned this is really in the jurisdiction of the finance committee, the senator hatchery here is the ranking member we could ask him. but we've now received received an objection to them and all at the debate go on. senator schumer. >> yacht, mr. chairman. i understand with senator leahy is getting out. i know senator hatch on the finance committee has some ideas in this regard, too. all of us believe we want those who are applying for rpi status to pay back taxes. is difficult to discern below the 12,000 for concepts to the reality. we all know book of living in

the shadows. we all know part of living in the shadows is not keeping records and we all know many of them were probably paid cash. they probably don't even know how much they might owe in taxes and we do have another goal here. we all realize the system is broken. we realize people did wrong things in the goal is to set this credibility of those in the shadows come out of the shadows and prevent new people come in new ways of legal immigrants coming into this country. i worry i have here is by being as rigid -- i'll say rigid. as rigid as this amendment is, it will delay and prevent many, many, many people coming out of the shadows and will be stuck in the same situation of the 11 million people, maybe four or

five people could meet this requirement. what i would like to do a lot with senator hatch and trying come up with something on the floor that might meet both goals that would allow illegal immigrants to blowback taxes to pay them but in a practical way that doesn't deter people from coming out of the shadows, coming forward and being able to be here legally. >> mr. chairman, i guess i'm not quite grasping what about this is so good should in the language page 70 and 71 of the bill referring to the fact the tax liability is taxes assessed were replaced with language that doesn't require the languages i at least broad administrative flexibility on the revenue collection agency. >> joe wilson a legal immigrant comes forward. the safe bet to pay back taxes. he says they don't all that back taxes sorry.

i worked for the state companies. i don't realize how much he made for the company paid me cash. what do we do? >> is no easy answer to that question and yet that doesn't mean the answer is we have to make it a very narrow definition. >> of the senator would yield for a moment. in the senate we are taking a moment of silence that you infer that it comes in oklahoma. please join me in that.

the >> thank you, allah. for those, i know we have senators and this committee who come from state who are not infrequently visited by tornadoes, but also those of us who are not from such states. nobody can watch the devastation here with the people sent in the governor through the first responders have the appearance of us children, others who have hearts going out to themselves. i appreciate that and senator leahy, i appreciate you yielding for us to do that. the floor is yours. >> my point was there's nothing particularly rigid about all

this says is we should retreat from the point that says it has to be assessed. nonetheless, i'd be willing to submit this for a boy so, mr. chairman. >> senator leahy, it seems to me you are not requiring the government investigate everybody that applied for rpi status. it seems to me your amendment as saying the law says -- the bill says if you've been assessed by the irs a tax payment, they say you should pay it. your amendment seems to be dose of the situation in which maybe they're investigating and have it completed the investigation and they find clear evidence a person offers taxes to the united states government. they could be made to pay five with a penalty, just like an american citizen. otherwise people into the country illegally who cheated on

her taxes preferences in a better deal than american citizens. >> that's exactly right. that's what is behind the amendment. to the extent the concern is being too rigid in the disdain unamended bill is too rigid because it doesn't get discretion in the irs to collect taxes unless there's previously been an assessment made. this is agnostic into any situation, but it takes up the rigid restriction on the irs. without i'd be happy to submit this to a voice vote. >> senator durbin. >> all this in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes appeared to have it.

the ever present hackberry. -- but very. you have more amendments, senator lee? can be done very, very quickly otherwise he'll be the first story business we come back. it's your call. >> public no more than five minutes between the two of them. you're the chairman comes i will defer to your judgment on that. >> we've got plenty of time. when we recessed to go to the roll call vote, we'll come back at 2:30. senator lee, call up your amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to all of the amendment number eight. >> we amendment eight is before the committee. >> those who received deportation have absconded are

returned. those have absconded a return to legally ineligible for rpi status. this is a subset of those people are willingness to fight outlaws. again by ignoring a court order. they are paid only those convenient for them at the moment. some may argue those who received deportation orders are simply unfortunate that it was only luck of the draw. some may suggest it's unfair to extend legal status to those able to evade protection to otherwise similarly situated people who have been to have been cut. it's not unfair to require the

law. without i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? >> if there are not, i ask for a voice vote. >> i understand the sponsors of the overall bill are opposed to this because of the number excluded from rpi status. those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? senator lee, you have another amendment? >> i like to call the plea amendment number 12. >> 1986, sort affidavit satisfy the player requirements laid out. availability is the means of demonstrating employment created

a substantial amount of fraud. according to a 1998 "new york times" article, one evidence that royal crest meets testified over 141400 illegal immigrants with fraudulent affidavits. used to satisfy important requirement for adjustment to status for rpi will have work authorization should be able to provide concrete documentation they been employed for the duration of their legal status. you should be no need to resort to affidavit says is the case under the 86 legislation. we can avoid the same problems by adopting this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do so. i will accept a voice vote.

[inaudible] >> there are many times there's no other way than a sworn affidavit going back to the argument made on his previous amendment lancer that would prohibit hundreds of thousands and millions from gaining rpi status. i would urge its rejection. >> mr. chairman? >> there's only two of us on this committee are your 1986. if there's anything we learned from 1986 and before the bill gets to the president, we've got to have a lot of things we learned in 1986. is subject to fret at this amendment not to be about it so that i'll repeat what we did in

1986. learn from the mistakes. >> mr. chairman, there's almost 4 million unauthorized workers work in the underground economy in 2010. millions have little proof of employment. let me tell you what we learned in 1996. these affidavits must come from non-relatives who have direct knowledge of the rpi education or work background to the affidavit must include information for verification purposes and a sworn affidavits are used, at least one more reliable document must also be submitted to provide evidence of employment or education. from 1996 senate standard here when you do with underground economy, sworn affidavits are part of the proof.

>> québec and respond ever so briefly. this is from and they just to dlp or status. they should've been here long enough to build up work documentation. >> those in favor of the amendment -- >> one of the questions i have on some of the disclosure rules on the bill if somebody submits a false affidavit and let's say the reviewing official somehow identifies it as being false, are they free to report it to the agents to investigate for false statements and cramps to the government? >> i don't believe it's any prohibition are not happening. >> at that good a language that said those documents can't be referred out or limited.

you may be correct. i'll review it. i said i would be big mistake. >> those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? as you know, we started at the bill close to 300 or more amendments. we have five minutes left. 28 amendments for the rest of the bill. not that. 90% of the amendments have been finished. i appreciate everybody's cooperation. the fact that all this online before we started with helpful. i try to keep this as transparent as possible. so we will go for the voting continued accurate to 30:00. i think that colleagues for their cooperation.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> asking about the schedule. we have five amendments remain

in instead title a. we have the hatch amendment and we will call when we get a quorum here. hatch amendment, cruise amendment, play commandment and then hatch schumer. so i know senator cruz is here. if we get if we get a quorum of senator hatch is not here, we'll go to senator cruz. >> i take a couple minutes to make a comment? >> you're the ranking member. you can take a couple minutes anytime you want. just don't show. >> i better pushed the microphone. senator lee had an amendment that we defeated and i made a little common at the time.

i've had a chance to think about it and build on it whether we learn any lessons from 1986. since we have been discussing immigration reform at the committee level, i've repeatedly mentioned about the lessons of 1986. before broke for lunch we headed up the input of this committee that concerns me because it suggests for repeating those mistakes. senator lee would have prohibited the use of sworn affidavits of proof that a person is eligible to remain a registered professional emigrant. under the bill, people with status must prove they been employed for the duration of the rpi status. the senator from utah wanted to prohibit the use of sworn affidavits because they are not verifiable or trustworthy. we know from our 1986 experience

with sworn affidavits are unreliable and it signifies massive fraud. we have in your times article as an example. two years after 1986 showing how easy it was for immigrant at that time to get false affidavits. during one investigation the immigration national service arrested seven people are selling affidavits to new immigrants. one of these fraudsters ran a scheme that sold affidavits to people illegally. thousands more applications filled out and waiting for others. in fact, while investigators were on site, seizing the evidence, dozens of individuals arrive to purchase more fraudulent affidavits, buying and selling fake documents was a thriving business.

one person arrested at 364 fraudulent for fraudulent affidavits on a five-acre farm. a third offering false affidavits at prices from $950 to $3000 it is no surprise our mistake to sworn affidavits as proof of employment on a national scale. ashes to fraud read all about. how many more got away with the same? how many were brought and paid for? and allowed illegal aliens. i reject any amendment and others to improve on the 1986

legalization, this committee is going down the same road we did in 1986. i was fair. at that day. we screwed up, we should do it again. i yield the floor. >> senator arnaud is here. senator grassley of course. we need one more. i know some are hoping will not go past 10 or 11:00 tonight. i would have been if his attention of amendments. we'll go to you next.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a second degree amendment that would add a savings clause to clarify this did not end tag granted a silent. >> without objection it will be amended by the second degree amendment decorates exemption for people who've received silence. the amendment by the second degree, senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to circumvent the path to citizenship and again have a go. we're a nation nation of immigrants. everyone of us around this table are the children of those who came here seeking freedom. they are also detonation of a rule rule of law and in addressing immigration, i believe we need to respect those legacies.

our immigration system right now is broken and there's an overwhelming consent is across this country, a bipartisan consensus we need to fix the underlying problem and not simply kick the can down the road. not simply ensure the problems we have today will recur down the road and be worse. in my view, for immigration reform to pass on to credibly fix the problem, and these three elements added to the current bill. first of all border security and i regret the committee rejected a number of amendments that would appeal to youth in the border security. secondly i believe we should expand michael immigration can reduce the waiting. i am introduced to amendments to significantly expand michael immigration of 675,000 to

1.3 million to increase temp where he hides dockworkers by 500%. third, i believe for this legislation to solve the problem, there should not be a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally. if there's a pathway to citizenship in my judgment that is number one and can dissent with the rule of law. number two, it is unfair to glance of legal immigrants who followed the rules, waited in line years in decades to come and number three, i believe the pathway to citizenship is included in legislation that congress passes, that will serve only to encourage more illegal immigration. it will not solve the problem. indeed if legislation includes a pathway to citizenship passes

like in 1986, i have little doubt in 10 or 20 years we'll be back here instead of 11 million people will be back here was 20 or 30 because the pathway to citizenship will encourage others to violate the law. our broken immigration system creates human tragedies. mothers, fathers, sons and daughters to the device and a tattered were preyed upon by courteous and subject to trafficking and no humane system would encourage a perpetuation of the status quo. in my view we need a solution that respects the rule of law and ensures there are real and meaningful consequence is for violating immigration laws. i'd like to make a final point to this advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and

rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system and in particular addressing situations are the 11 million currently in the shadows. if this amendment is a top due to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for rpi. they would still be eligible for legal status under terms of the bill eligible for lp our status as well surveyor out of the shadows which proponents point to as their object to to provide a legal status for those here illegally to be out of the shadows. what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so there are real as they respect the rule of law and treat legal

immigrants with fairness and respect they deserve. a second point to advocacy group so passionately engaged. in my view, if this committee rejects the amendment and i think everyone hairpiece it is quite likely the committee will choose to reject this amendment. in my view, the decision will make it more likely tire bill will fail in the house of representatives. i don't want immigration reform to fail. i would urge people of good faith that the objective is to pass commonsense immigration reform that improves the immigration and allows those here illegally to come in out of the shadows, they should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together in this amendment were

to pass, the chances of the bill passing into law would increase dramatically. i urge the committee to give it full consideration and adopt the amendment. >> i think the senator. my concern is that virtually got the bill and that was a very careful balance by republicans and democrats as sponsors of it is going to because of false promise of citizenship on the one hand or legislation on the other hand takes it back because of the vast majority of the 11 million would not be qualified. senator schumer company wish to speak. senator schumer and senator flake.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. dishes the distance that some of us are part because my good friend from the sewer now does this with complete sincerity says this is the way to immigration reform. you cannot have an america where some people come here and work and never could achieve citizenship. but if so it can only do things in the harbor of the city i represent. out of many, one. that's what america has done for generations and generations. come here, work hard and you can become an american. a wonderful scene with aliens around the globe aspire to go to a european type system, which is clearly not worked over there, where people work, work, but

ever become full citizens. presents everything you have been. let's do this come of this or not do that. crusade to my colleague without, maybe capacitive house that way. i don't think the house leadership on the other side wants to entertain us, but she won't pass in the senate. you won't have my vote. you won't have the vote of a whole lot of people. so i would strongly urge you to see this amendment. it goes against everything america stands for. it's a long path to citizenship, but that torch will still burn brightly in the eyes of millions who are here and billions around

the world. i don't want to shut that torch. i don't want to stop the life of not torture being invaded because that's what this amendment will do. two classes of americans. >> senator flake. >> i appreciate the spirit with which the amendments adopted. the last thing we want to do is incentivize more illegal immigration. in 1986 we provided an opportunity for people to become citizens. we didn't do enough border security and we didn't do enough -- we didn't have a meaningful temporary worker program to account for labor needs comes to the federal government is basically the position of derivative go at least i'm not the last 20 years. we don't want to be in that situation and that's where the bill can change border security.

but it also has the opportunity for those here illegally now who have committed no other current and to have the prospect of citizenship. it's a long and arduous task. 13 years before anybody could become a citizen, but it's possible and health care and the gentleman says 20 or so now we don't want to be in a situation where we have the same situation we have today. i agree completely, but nor do i situation with a significant number of people who would like to become a citizen but never came. i submit you look at countries in europe were you really don't have that opportunity to become a citizen of france or germany or britain. you don't want god. we don't want the second-class citizen or another community that never has the prospect of the rights and responsibilities

of citizenship. that's important. people aspire to that. in 1986 i think only 40% of those offered the opportunity and a pretty easy path at that time to citizenship ended up taking it. a significant number won't take the path either. for those who want to earn it, what to do what's required in this legislation, they have to have that opportunity. that's the country is all about and a hope or maintain the legislation. are you back. >> understand the senator from hawaii and utah wish to speak. asunder from hawaii. >> is someone who has gone through citizenship process, all i have is my united states

naturalization documents. for those of us who participated or prior to citizenship ceremonies no this is one of the proudest moment for individuals and you say those who can attain never aspire to become u.s. citizens in the fullest sense of the word to participate is unwarranted and i would vote against this amendment. >> thank you. senator from utah. >> where a nation of immigrants. we always have been. i hope we always will be. one of the things we need to do to be a nation of democratic history to those who come here and particularly express concern for those who've come here legally and respected our laws as they've done so. there are those who have not a pathos and maybe treat them with dignity and respect and kindness.

out of fairness to those who play by the rules, it might make sense to give an additional benefit to those who have come here legally. a schoolteacher and utah told me i'm a recount a few sentences. she said a name is joanna and i've been working in the united states legally since 2007. i spent thousands of dollars in visa fees to work here legally. my employer's application was rejected twice by the department of labor due to coding mistakes. when the application was approved by the scissor, we had to wait for the new fiscal year. i had to leave the country in combat. however the square started in august. i was afraid is going to lose my job or my principal hired a substitute teacher for the time says that the country for my visa. has gone above and beyond to

obey the law and contribute to the community. i feel like the proposed immigration change without people like me. i cannot come to terms with the fact the illegal immigrants who never made an effort to find the complaint here will be granted a chance to be citizens while someone like me has been everything right will not be given that chance. i cannot comprehend it. as i consider the amendment i think of people like chewing to generate a. i'm not saying there could never be a chance to grant citizenship to those now here legally. i'm saying we first need to do certain things we definitely need to enforce the border are met to consider disparity we create when we pass this legislation. >> sereno supplying for a visa if it's not a citizen visa. anyone has applied for green cards illegally gets ahead of

those who cross the border illegally. that's the hallmark of our bill someone gains an advantage over people who waited in line patiently. chewing the cud of applied for a green card and then she for application for a green card or be placed ahead of fathers across the border after her. >> that's correct and i certainly understand shooing of us here, but she did come here legally and that needs to be taken account. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i respect the values that underlie the amendment, the value of rewarding people who play by the rules and follow the law. i think there's other ways to avoid the consequences and stronger enforcement of laws at

the border, stronger enforcement of laws that can illegal hiring. stronger enforcement of other features of this bill designed to prevent those negative consequences. this amendment goes to the very core and the values and traditions of america. the reason people want to come here in the first place is that we are a beacon of liberty for people who face oppression and demagoguery abroad. the statue of liberty that my friend from new york described as always been a symbol of that weekend and the kinds of welcoming we do as a people and i think we would be diminished as a people by the kind of second-class citizenship. in fact, less than second-class citizenship is below the citizenship. the two tiers of residence the

would be established, so i am sympathetic to stronger enforcement against violation of laws at the borders are within our country by employers and others who would prey upon people such as charging excessive fee, providing the recruiting abuses was set to guard against and i hope those kinds of measures can replace this one. >> mr. chairman? >> i would just say senator schumer has reduced wrong statement consistent with the views of the gang of a that we have decided and that's the way is going to be. no changes to code a significant provisions of our bill will be accepted. i don't think that's a healthy

position and i wish that weren't the case. i wish we were in better shape. with regard to the european situation, it isn't struck dave. europe however does not provide the children become citizens. in your people to those generations of people who lived in the country without being able to achieve citizenship. that's not what happened here is citizenships were not provided those who entered illegally. in 2007, this was discussed and i give a lot of thought to it. i reached a simple conclusion that never again after the 1986 should we provide every single benefit to those who entered illegally that we provide those who enter illegally. the culmination of the benefits we offer a citizenship and i

just don't believe that we should found citizenship on a legal acts of entering the country. yes, this amendment the senate has offered would allow them virtually every single economic advantage that apparently people came for, but it does not provide citizenship and that's the right position. i don't think there is a moral, legal or constitutional argument that we must provide every benefit that we provide to the goal -- to those who enter illegally and i think the senator for raising this important question and we need to be talking about it. we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> anybody else wish to speak? >> mr. chairman, a few points in conclusion.

in my opinion, the current bill does not fix the problem, which republicans and democrats across the country want to fix our broken immigration system. this bill will make the problem worse. further illegal immigration means further human tragedies, further lives lost, further families broken up, further women and children get demise by coyotes and sex traffickers and that is not a humane outcome. that is not an outcome i know anyone on the committee wants to see happen. secondly, the senator from arizona made a point to become a citizen. anyone and if they come here illegally and one of the ways to ensure that hispanics and being in improving legal immigration, creating legal avenues for those who seek the american dream to

come here. i'm the son of an immigrant who became penniless agt not speaking english in seeking the american dream. that is our legacy as a country. i would note that this committee voted down by amendment to increase high skilled immigrants. i think we should be allowing those and create jobs to make our economy stronger. the third, my friend from new york had a statement that is very interesting and i would. if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform. i don't disagree that has been the position of the proponents of this bill.

i don't agree with that position and i would sit just to the million who want to see our immigration reform fixed that position should be traveling. with that position if the votes are not present in congress for a path to citizenship, the senate is prepared to say we will do nothing to improve has got immigration. nothing to increase legal immigration and nothing to bring the 11 million in the shadows out of the shadows. i would suggest to all of those who want to see this program fixed that it's all or nothing if there is no path to citizenship. there is no reform. tying immigration reform hostage to a path to citizenship is not a strategy to pass the bill.

it is a strategy to create partisan division. we may well result in more political battles, so i would urge everyone in this committee to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem in a humane way that secures the border, get serious about fixing the problem that extends and improves legal immigration and that's not unfairly treat legal immigrants by removing a path to citizenship, but allowing us the legislation does illegal status for those here illegally. that would be reform of great many people, both republican and democrat but embrace and i urge the committee to consider the amendment. >> clerk will call the roll. wal-mart

[roll call] >> mmn is not agreed to. santa cruz -- senator hatch is still not here. you have cruised through and then played three and played for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. crews to as an amendment that

would prohibit those here illegally from being eligible for means tested benefits, federal, state or local. and in addition would exclude those individuals from being eligible for obama carried. as we've just been been discussed, i am a proponent of expanded legal immigration. it's one of the great strengths of the nation that we welcome people around the world coming to seek a better life in the american dream. and yet, one of the greatest challenges to being welcoming with immigrants is our ever-expanding welfare state. indeed in a striking exchange that i would encourage people to google and watch, milton friedman, prior to 1914, the united states had no limits on legal immigration that we open

our doors to any who wanted to come throughout the country and that was a state of affairs that was widely to pull an positive for country. obviously since 1914 with whitecaps and what milton friedman asked dennis was changed and he pointed out not friedman was a vocal advocate of expanded immigration. he pointed out that what changed is we started to see the expansion of the ever-growing welfare state. right now our country spends roughly $1 trillion in federal and state means tested welfare plan.