over the next few days and weeks and i want to be sure that they think this bill has the provisions that it needs to protect american jobs and american workers and i want to make sure that americans stem graduates, in going around minnesota, encouraging kids, because i was a sputnik kid, to study stem. and i want to make sure that stem graduates have the jobs and the skills that they worked so hard to develop. and i reserve the right to push for further worker protections on the floor, but i'm voting for this. thank you. . . well get this bill out of committee and, again, i appreciate everybody has helped us move along, but i think we all know that once it gets on the floor of the senate, there will be further -- there will

be further amendments for and against that we will have to debate, but i think what we are doing and what i help we are doing by keeping this as open and trabs parent as possible is to give the united states senate at least a product where they know what the debate has been and how we have voted and can go from there. senator coons, you were seeking recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to thank senator hatch and senator klobuchar, senator rubio, we worked together on the bill and i felt that was an important contribution to this and the leadership of the gang of eight, in particular, senator schumer, for negotiating through this resolution i think is a significant step forward for this bill and i am eager, senator hatch, to see this bill come out of this committee with a strong bipartisan vote. i think this series of endments addressed legitimatee

administrativeability how companies will grow jobs here in the united states and i think new requirements and i'm hopeful they will work, as senator grassley and senator durbin described. this bill includes a requirement that all employers, no excuses, no exceptions that they recruit u.s. workers first and i think that will be a positive change for u.s. workers. i'm listening to concerns from labor and want to make sure we strike the right balance here going forward. i think this standard is the department of labor with expanded authorities will be able to force and i think senator durbin and senator grassley, you've made a real contribution of focusing on firms and the abuses we've seen in the past and striking a good balance here with allowing american companies to find and recruit the skilled work force they need while still

protecting american workers. i want to thank the bill's sponsors for their tireless work on this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just so we can keep the procedure we're on, senator rassley spoke earlier. he'll have a second doig amendment to the -- second-degree amendment to the amendment pending before us. >> mr. chairman, i want to share some thoughts about it. >> haven't introduced it yet. >> i know, in general. >> the ranking member introduce his second degree. >> the amendment has been passed around. it's a second degree. senator hatch has given me an unusual opportunity to bring up an issue that we brought up before, and without his second-degree amendment, it can now be amendment again. i wouldn't have this opportunity, but it's a bonderful opportunity to remind people -- wonderful opportunity to remind people what i'm trying to accomplish with this amendment which i'll soon

describe is to make sure that this legislation does exactly what the authors say it does but it really doesn't do. this amendment would have mployers to attend current law already some employers the h-1-b dependents to make good faith efforts in fulfilling this requirement, these employers simply have to attest. during the application process. that they have tried to find an american worker. that's pretty simple. the member of this committee in good faith standard. well, it's the same standard used in the bill for h-1-b dependents. it's the same standard used in

current law. it's the same standard in the hatch amendment. some employers say that they already make every effort to hire an american. well, then, they shouldn't have a problem with this amendment. my amendment strikes the similar language in the hatch amendment which is watered down and provides exceptions for some employers. my amendment would subject all employers and underline all employers, to this standard. their amendment says, quote, if the employer is an h-1-b skilled worker dependent employer, then -- and that's the end of the quote. that's from their amendment. then they have to offer the job to an equally or better qualified u.s. worker. this is a very small subset of the employer. we have homegrown american talent. we have qualified people here

to do many jobs. why shouldn't we require companies to look at americans before the import workers? if you're for american workers and of course you should vote for this amendment. i yield the floor. >> who seeks recognition? senator sessions. >> mr. chairman, i thank senator grassley for his leadership. i believe he's touching on some very valuable points. i believe prudent would tell us to be careful as we go forward. i am not sure where this economy is heading, but most experts project that we're not creating the kind of jobs now and aren't likely to do so in the future that we've had had in the past. though it's a troubling situation. the congressional budget office colleagues in their february report over the next 10 years project that in the last five

years of the 10-year budget window we would be creating 75,000 jobs in america per month. under the immigration bill here we'll be bringing in as immigrants, 1.2 million per year. that's about -- compared to 900,000 jobs being created each of those five years. we need to s mg think about. i just saw the latest unemployment statistics. unemployment -- those unemployed and seeking benefits rose 32,000 last week. over the last four weeks the numbers are up. we've had some improvement in it but it has not kept up, i would warn my colleagues, and what about high-skilled workers? we can ask about that. under the projected stem workers are going to the bureau

of labor statistics. job openings over 10 years are projected to be 2,537,000. that's the projected numbers on b.l.s. the projected earned degrees in stem fields total 3,919,000. so i don't know if that answers our question completely or not. i do not know if that means we will have a surplus, but it seems like we are. the economic policy institute recently released a comprehensive study dealing with supply and demand of stem graduates showing similar findings in the past, in the immediate past. one of its findings was -- listen to this. this was their study, for, quote, for every two students that u.s. colleges graduates with stem degrees, only one is hired in a stem job. it also found, quote, the

annual flows of guest workers amounts to 1/3 to 1/2 of all i.t. jobs. that's a rather remarkable statistic. you say that's not true. i don't believe that. well, what this legislation would do and as amended today as i understand it, and we haven't had a chance to fully digest it, but it raises the h-1-b workers to a minimum of 115,000 every year. and as senator grassley said, the people who are the owners of the companies that have to seek other american workers are only the h-1-b dependent companies. i don't think it's any wonder that the communication workers of america have written us to oppose this. they said that's a union.

what do you expect? i expect them to defend the american worker. i don't think they should have been rather lax in it, in my opinion. but this is a matter they have spoken out on. a professor has recently written this. all objective studies -- and he's testified before our committee -- that have examined the stem labor markets have concluded there is no stemic shortage of american workers -- systemic shortage of american workers or students. this has been conducted by academics as well as by respective think tanks like rand. i don't know if you've been to college graduation ceremonies recently but a lot of those kids have been wondering where they're going to get a job. they're not so confident about their future. so i'm asking simply, are we sure that we should be almost doubling the minimum number of people at a minimum the number of people who would be taking

these stem jobs? and i know my colleagues talked about the people who come under the h-1-b program, and they cite the entrepreneurial capacity and they would be of benefit to america, but the big companies that are using this program are not sponsoring these individuals for citizenship or permanent residency. these individuals are using them for three years and having them go back to their country call as servants, some it, making it more difficult for americans to find jobs. they don't have to promote them. they don't have the same obligation to them they would have to a permanent worker. they seem to be quite happy with this kind of worker and that's what they'd like to do. i can understand they might, but should our immigration policy serve the national interest or the special interest of certain companies?

the professor goes on to say, this bill does make some positive steps. i think that's important to note. with the h-1-b program. but it falls short by not fixing the fundamental problem to h-1-b or other guest worker programs. employers will continue to bring in cheaper foreign workers with ordinary skills to directly substitute for rather than complement workers in america. under this bill, the h-1-b program would continue displacing american workers and deny them both current and future opportunities. that's a serious matter that he's written. the "san francisco chronicle" -- >> will the senator yield for a minute just for some scheduling things? >> yes. >> when, senators, finish speaking about -- on this amendment, the senator from iowa's question of roll call

which of course he's entitled to will have it. i wonder how many more amendments are you going to have. >> i filed seven but only going to offer four. this is one of the four. >> three more. >> then, when you get to the next -- when you get off the hatch amendment, the next one, i am going to have three amendments. >> i want to make sure senator sessions will know how many more times he's going to be speaking on your amendments so, senator sessions, i'll yield back to you. >> can i answer senator sessions after he's through? >> well, thank you for that interruption and allowing me to clear my thoughts for a minute. so "the san francisco chronicle" said that these changes could have unforeseen consequence, noting that it

this is about the policy of student visas and graduating students who would be able to get -- turn the iversities into green card bills and "msn money" did a report in an article, u.s. tech talent shortage. that's fooey. while companies insist america's education failures the t -- make more h-1-b need for employers a must. they claim that the only solution is to, quote, increase the annual limit of h-1-b visas which allows corporations to bring employees with a bachelors degrees into the united states. they are churning out, this report says, more programs and engineers than the job market

is absorbing. could that be true? if it is should we be doubling the number of people that are brought in under the h-1-b program? at a minimum? u.s. colleges are turning out more. roughly twice as many american undergreat wits -- undergraduates have earned degrees in science, technology, engineering and math disciplines than end up going to work in those fields. i would just note this week's barrons says that jobs are projected to grow for college graduates by 1.6% over the next five years each year, but wages would only grow 1.5%. wages are well below the inflation rate under those projections. the "atlantic magazine", the myth of america's high-tech

shortage. and they raise questions about that. so i know that our union friends have interests to protect, but i'm not surprised they are uneasy about this legislation. are these numbers -- these articles all wrong? it starts out, the "atlantic" argument, so it turns out the united states is not in fact the educational wasteland tech industry lobbyists who have been meeting about this bill or months would have you think . the senate's current immigration bill would grant their wish. companies like microsoft often claim that america is suffering from an economically hobbling shortage for math, science and computic talent. they feel the hiring gaps by importing tens of thousands of educated guest workers beyond what the law currently allows.

roughly half the guest workers who currently arrive through the program come for computer tech jons. then the article -- computer tech jobs. then the article says this. the whole skills shortage, it's a myth, as was amplely illustrated yet again in a report written by researchers from rutgers, georgetown and american university and issued by the economic policy institute. it still might be the case that tech companies are having trouble finding specific skill sets in certain niches, but there simply aren't any signs pointing to a broad daerth of talent. they are -- broad dirt of talent. so i just want to say that this is a very large issue. i don't know to what extent

objective observers and specific economic research was provided to the gang of eight as they produced this bill. i know they were in constant contact with the people, the companies that are demanding the most increases in this legislation. i'm uneasy about it. i don't think we should be moving this far this fast. and finally we know that the h-1-b program has been very much criticized for many, many abuses. i think this might improve some of those, but fundamentally they are not sufficiently corrective. >> senator hatch who wished to speak. >> yes, if i could say a few words. we cannot continue to simply hope american companies do not move operations to other countries because of this dysfunctional u.s. visa policy. trust me. many countries have policies in

place to attract highly educated individuals from around the globe in order to boost their economies. these are policies to grab our american educated ph.d.'s. n fact, last week i read a siliconvalley.com article entitled "canada comes to silicon valley" to poach high-tech workers struggling with immigration problems. canada has landed in silicon valley with a brazen message. ve us your smart, your restless, workers wanting to breathe life into the north. i ask that article be placed in the record at this point. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i want to read a couple key votes. >> ready for a vote. >> i'll be ready in just a minute. >> take all the time you want. pizza has been ordered. i had to pay for it anyway so might as well stay for the night. >> as the u.s. congress

wrestlers with the long sought overhaul of the immigration system, canadian government is trying to poach. i don't blame them, to be honest with you. the campaign begins friday with a four-day visit to the bay area by jason kenny, canada's minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism. quote, i think everyone knows the american system is pretty dysfunctional, unquote, kenny said. he said that last thursday in an interview in vancouver, british colombia. quote, i'm going to the bay area to spread the message that canada is open for business. we'll give them the canadian equivalent of a green card as soon as they arrive, unquote. i could go on. all i could say is i'll put the rest of my remarks in the record at this point. look -- >> without objection, it's in the record. the clerk will call the roll. >> ok. >> mr. durbin.

>> no by proxy. >> mr. whitehouse. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. blumenthal. >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. combrassly. >> no. -- >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> mr. cruz. >> no by proxy. >> mr. flake. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the votes are two yeas, 15 nays. >> senator grassley, you have some more amendments. >> i think i'll have -- i've done one.

this will be the second one. and two after this. this amendment would -- by the way, before i -- >> what is the number of the amendment? >> number 3. >> and i would note obviously -- >> number 3. >> number 3, people have the opportunity to speak if they want. i know the long, long argument for me on this one affected two votes. let us hope we will move a little bit -- >> my argument will take a minute and a half. starting after i say this. the amendment refers to a hearing we have, and we had some expert testimony in this area. so if hearings have any value and somebody points out something that's pretty striking and this amendment tries to correct that, that's what this amendment's all

about. this amendment would ensure that women in stem fields are not displaced by foreign workers. my amendment takes language from current law that prohibits employers from displacing americans 90 days before or after the filing of an h-1 visa petition. it says an employer cannot displace female u.s. workers. it gives women even more protection by prohibiting employers from displacing them 180 days before or after they apply for a foreign worker. this 180 days isn't new. it's what's proposed in the bill for h-1-b dependent employers. it's in the hatch amendment. now, this is where the system comes in. we heard testimony this year from a female engineer, dr. pennetta, who said that an overwhelming percentage of h-1-b visas go to men. she said 75% of the visas go to

men. women are being left behind by employers who hire h-1-b visaholders, and what about women workers and students here at home? are we going to ignore them too? i urge adoption of the amendment. >> does anyone wish to -- >> mr. chairman -- >> senator schumer. >> i'll be brief. first, i think we should protect both men and women. second, there are two reasons that employers would try to hire a foreign worker. lower price. we require in this a level two wage which means they can't do that. number two, that they are stuck in that job. that's been the problem in the past. we give portability. on day two, the man or woman in the job, if they're being treated poorly, can go look for another job. so i would urge the amendment be defeated.

>> you want a roll call? >> yes. >> clerk, call the roll. >> before, just to close on this, first of all, the senator from new york, you just heard him say we want to protect both men and women. that's what my previous amendment did and he voted begins it. now, what we do is add more days for the protection of women along the lines of what we heard testimony on. so i ask for a roll call. >> clerk will call the role. >> ms. feinstein. >> yes. >> mr. shummer. -- mr. schumer. >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no by proxy. >> ms. klobuchar. >> no. >> mr. franken. >> no. mr. blumenthal. >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. sessions.

>> aye. >> mr. graham. >> no by proxy. >> mr. cornyn. >> no. >> no. >> mr. cruz. >> no by proxy. >> mr. flake. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> ok. my third amendment -- >> mr. chairman, three yeas. 15 nays. >> three yeas, 15 nays. the amendment is not agreed to. >> a minute and a half to explain this amendment, number 2. this amendment would ensure that h-1-b programs doesn't squeeze american student out of the stem field. we have -- >> 2. >> number 2. we have extremely high unemployment levels for recent graduates. they can't find jobs, and when they do they often aren't employed in fields relevant to their education. if we import more foreign workers, we will only make the problem worse. everyone seems to want to

staple a green card to dipalomas. this bill does that. -- diplomas. this bill does that. what will be the ramifications? will we hurt students? my amendment says simply if the federal government finds fewer u.s. citizens are graduating in stem fields over the next five years, then we'll eliminate the unlimited green card exception hat the bill provides. >> anyone wish to speak about it? all right. the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. feinstein. >> no. >> mr. schumer. >> no. >> mr. durbin. >> no by proxy. >> mr. whitehouse. >> no. >> ms. klobuchar. >> no by proxy. >> mr. franken. >> no. >> mr. coons. >> no by proxy. >> mr. blumenthal. >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. grassley.

>> aye. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> aye. >> mr. graham. >> no by proxy. >> mr. cornyn. >> no. >> mr. lee. >> no by proxy. >> mr. cruz. >> no by proxy. >> mr. flake. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 15 ays, 15 -- two yeas, nays. >> senator klobuchar voted in person. >> this is my last second-degree amendment to the hatch amendment, and we don't have a number on this one. number 4. >> amendment number 4. >> this amendment would apply the same wage requirements written in the bill to all ployers, not just some

employers. the bill currently states that h-1-b dependent employers would be required to offer level two ages to an h-1-b nonimmigrant. let me explain h-1-b dependent employers and level two wages. h-1-b dependent employers are defined under current law and, again, in this bill has employers that have certain number of h-1-b visaholders. for example, a company is an h-1-b dependent if that employer has more than 51 total employees and of those at least 15% are h-1-b nonimmigrants. the wage levels are defined in the bill. the secretary of labor would survey employers to determine the prevailing wage for each occupational classification. the responses to those surveys would then allow the secretary to determine three levels that are commensurate with

experience, education, level of supervision, level two wages are the mean of wages surveyed. my amendment would require all employers to pay level two wages to h-1-b nonimmigrants. if it's good enough for some employers, it should be good enough for all employers. i yield. >> clerk will call the roll. >> ms. feinstein. >> no. >> mr. schumer. >> no. >> mr. durbin. >> no. >> mr. whitehouse. >> no. >> ms. klobuchar. >> no by proxy. >> mr. franken. >> yes. >> mr. coons. >> no by proxy. >> mr. bleemen thall. >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> aye. >> mr. graham. >> no by proxy. >> mr. cornyn. >> no. >> mr. lee. >> no by proxy.

>> mr. cruz. >> no by proxy. >> mr. flake. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the votes are three yeas, 15 nays. >> and senator klobuchar will voting in person. are there any other amendments those hatch-schumer -- in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appears to have it. the ayes do have it. now as i understand it, we can turn to subtitles b and c involving agriculture workers. nd future immigration.

here's the amendments that are before us. on subtitles b and c involving agriculture workers, future immigration. leahy-whitehouse-coons, franken. grassley five amendments. >> three amendments. >> only have three of the -- sessions has six. >> he'll only have four. >> he'll only have four. cornyn, cruz -- >> no, sorry. >> i want to get going because there's so many. and we can get started with the rassley. senator whitehouse, sorry, four. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up whitehouse four and call for its consideration. it's very simple and it is for

the behalf of our united states government national laboratories, and it will allow national laboratories recruiting individuals to work r them to nominate the proposed employee for a conditional green card which will allow them to begin the security clearance process. otherwise there's a glitch in the law that would require the person to wait for five years. we obviously want our national labs to have the best quality scientists, and this would only apply to those nominated by those national labs. important for them. very few people should be involved. hope it's not controversial and can be voice voted with unanimous approval. >> i would note the second one senator whitehouse has to promote immigration, spur innovation, economic growth. those not in objection, those signify by saying aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes do have it. the fastest amender in rhode island. >> i thank the chairman and my colleagues. >> senator grassley. senator grassley has 16. i'm giving the gavel to senator feinstein. i'll be back in a few minutes. >> i've only got two minutes of comment. o you better hurry back. >> senator grassley, you're on. >> thank you. this amendment is for the purpose of doing what we do with a lot of other wages and figures that are in government programs. this bill to s in inflation. this bill has several feespenal

people who want to work in the united states. some of the fees are due upon application for legal status. some are due 10 years down the road when they apply for a green card. in fact, the entire legalization process in s. 744 is funded through fees. both the fees and penalties are to be deposited in a fund that will be used to help pay for the massive administrative costs as we legalize people. we don't know whether the fees and penalties will cover the cost of the bill. so my amendment takes a small step to help ensure that these fees will cover those costs. so it adjusts the fees and penalties for inflation. and there's a lot -- there's a lot -- a lot of discretion in my amendment to the secretary

to make a determination of hich index to use. that's about the only thing we leave to the secretary. otherwise it's adjusted accordingly. >> is there anyone that wishes to comment on the amendment? if not, all those in favor -- would you take a voice vote? >> no. >> all those in favor, please say aye. opposed. he motion is lost. ext, smor franken. -- senator franken. number 9. >> i'd like to call up franken 9. i decided to offer this amendment after hearing from the minnesota coalition for battered women, the sheila

wellstone institute, other advocacy groups in minnesota. they shared with me several heartbreaking stories of legal immigrants who had experienced domestic violence and had to choose either to stay with an abuser so that she and her children would have a roof over their heads or leave her abuser and risk homelessness. nobody should have to make that choice. my amendment would hope -- help guarantee that these women won't have to do so any more. the reason these women face a terrible choice was because of an unresolved and unintended ambiguity between two laws. in 1996, the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act, that's the welfare reform law that was passed in 1996, it provided that certain battered women who were here lawfully under vawa were, quote, qualified aliens, end quote,

meaning that they were not disqualified from receiving public and assisted housing. unfortunately, congress never went back to update h.u.d.'s statute which dates back to 1980 to reflect this change in the law. so now there's confusion about how these two statutes interact with one another. my amendment simply adds one line to the 1980 h.u.d. statute to reconcile it with the 1996 welfare reform law. thus clarifying that women are eligible for public and assisted housing if they are in the united states lawfully under vawa and that they have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and they have shown a substantial connection between that abuse or cruelty and the need for shelter. this should not be a controversial amendment. in fact, it already passed the ll senate by unanimous

consent in twee when senator kit -- in 2003, when senator kit bonn, offered it as an amendment to an appropriations bill. i note i consulted with the department of housing and urban development on this amendment and i appreciate the technical assistance that they provided. in addition, the office of the vice president, which has been real champion for vaw with a, supports this -- have a with a, supports this amendment. -- vawa, supports this amendment. and the letter that supports the end of domestic violence and a number of several advocacy groups across america. this amendment will help women and children. it's as simple as that, really. i ask my colleagues to support it. >> thank you, senator. if there's no discussion -- there is. >> i've had a chance to vote for language like this in the past, and i would support it again. and i'd urge my colleagues to support it. >> thank you, senator. all those in favor, please say

aye. opposed. the motion's carried. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. and next, sessions number 2. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to ask for a vote on this, but i would just wonder if my colleagues have had an opportunity to examine the bill to be able to tell us how many people they expect to be status in the united states so the next 10 years is? has that been determined? looks like 11 million under the first amnesty. about 4.5 million who would be iven accelerated admission who were delayed by the caps that are in place. and plus 1.5 million a year for 10 years is 15 million.

looks like we are above 30 million that would be given legal status in the next 10 years. 10% of the population of the united states. is there any dispute over that? we did mention canada earlier. i like canada's bill. they spent a lot of time reforming their immigration bill. they're very happy with it. i would take canada's policy now. it does actually shift to higher immigration. and i would other -- would note other advanced nations are reducing immigration. england and the u.k. in 2011, they admitted 247,000. and hey admitted 63,000, the prime minister has indicated he would reduce that further. and he said while i've always believed in the benefits of migration and immigration, i

also believe that immigration has to be properly controlled without proper controls, resources are stretched and benefits that immigration can bring are lost or forgotten, closed quote. thank you, madam chair. i would not offer -- >> and i thank you, senator. is there discussion? senator durbin. >> madam chair, as i understand the senator's amendment, the people would be here legally but could not work. you're limits to one million per year who would be authorized to go to work. the remainder would have to stay unemployed? >> no. the 20 million l.p.r.'s would be allowed to work. that's the nonimmigrant visa portion of the bill. and i'm not offering the amendment. i think it probably is not accurately drafted. >> ok. >> do you withdraw the amendment?

>> yes. >> thank you. the amendment is withdrawn. senator coons. >> thank you, madam chair. i'd like to call up coons 3. >> coons 3. thank you. >> this would permit the surviving spouses and children of employees of the united states government abroad who are killed in the line of duty to qualify for a special immigrant visa. this proposal has been introduced by representative michael mccaul in the house of representatives as h.r. 1781, the muss taffa local guard force support act. he was the local guard at the u.s. embassy in turkey who was killed in a suicide attack on february 1 earlier this year. this amendment fixes a gap in the existing special immigrant visa program that this particular tragic situation has exposed. when the employee who would otherwise be eligible to petition under the program is killed while defending american

lives. this amendment also, if i understand correctly, has the support of senator cornyn, who i believe has asked to be the co-sponsor of this amendment. and i would ask unanimous consent that he be so added at this time. >> so ordered. you are co-sponsored. thank you. thank you. senator cornyn. >> madam chairman, i do support this. is is inspired by a -- someone who was an employee of the united states government in turkey who was killed by terrorist activity. he had applied for immigrant status but was killed before he was able to satisfy the requisite -- the requirements. and so i'm glad that senator coons has introduced this amendment. i think it does justice and i would note that my colleague, michael mccaul, chairman of the homeland security committee in

the house, has introduced a companion bill. i would urge its adoption. >> thank you. call for the vote. all those in favor, please say aye. opposed. the motion is adopted. next is senator cornyn number 8. umber 8. >> thank you, madam chairman. i'd call up cornyn amendment number 8, along with the second-degree amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. >> i don't -- is there a second-degree? >> there is. >> and where would that be? all right. the amendment is before us as amended by the second degree. please proceed. >> thank you very much. this has to do with the eb-5 immigrant investor pilot program created by congress in

1992 as an effort to stimulate the united states economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. the program provides a venue through which permanent u.s. residents may be obtained by foreign nationals who invest $1 million in new commercial enterprises. in so doing, the visaholders have two years to create or preserve 10 full-time jobs for u.s. workers. over the years, communities have established eb-5 regional centers to help facilitate and entice foreign entrepreneurs to specific regions and to lower the cost of capital to finance local jobs and growth in targeted areas. regional center designation by the u.s. citizenship and immigration service has become crucial. nearly 90% of all eb-5 visas goes to individuals associated with such regional center. many

following the brac process, the base realignment and closing process, are still struggling to revitalize their local economies. and all of our states have been affected. and i think it's reasonable to expect, given the budget constraints, we may see further bracs, which will i think show the wisdom of this particular amendment. eb-5 program presents an opportunity to support brac communities since it's designed to targeted employment areas in regions of high unemployment. 150% of the national average. t.e.a. designation means the qualifying minimum investment level is half a million dollars. unfortunately, brac impacted communities have difficulty qualifying for t.e.a. designation because base unemployment is sudden and not reflected in historic trends.

additionally, any jobs lost because of brac are not included in the census tracks. although they have a large impact on a local community. so by expanding the definition of a targeted employment area to include, quote, any community adversely affected by a brac recommendation, congress will empower communities impacted by brac to -- with a new tool to recruit investors and revitalize their local communities. i would hope my colleagues -- i note the senator from hawaii, senator hirono, has generously agreed to co-sponsor the amendment. this is something i think will benefit all of our communities and i think the wisdom of this amendment will become even more evident as we sustain future bracs in the future which i think are inevitable. well, i note that the senator from texas told me about what entrepreneurs in texas have done and the good work they've made through the

regional center program. and i also am aware of what they pay with some of the communities with the brac closings. i think as a strong supporter of eb-5, i think what you're doing in terms of investment, makes a great deal of support. i strongly support it. i assume you will be happy of a voice vote? l those in favor of cornyn amendment 8 will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. i thank the senator for bringing it up. senator, you have a amendment 1, is that correct? >> i call up hirono 1. i introduced this amendment as a bipartisan bill with senator mikulski as a co-sponsor. my amendment would exempt the

children of filipino world war ii veterans who fought for the united states on immigrant visas. this bipartisan proposal will provide for elderly filipino world war ii veterans with their sons and daughters to be reunified. these brave men and women fight alongside americans in the critical southwest pacific theater and in recognition of their service to our country, we did agree to give them citizenship but we failed to extend that to their children. and because of the decades' long backlog in the family immigration system, many of the veterans have had to live their golden years apart from their children with almost no hope of being reunited during their lifetime. we need to remedy this by passing this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support it. >> thank you. i note that you and mr. mick lls key have work -- you and

senator mikulski have worked on this. they should not be forced to live away from their children in their later, later years. senator durbin asked for recognition and senator blumenthal. >> i don't see the gentleman in the audience today. there he is. >> ok. >> i had a chance to meet and personally thank for his -- >> thank you, sir. >> for being here. >> thank you for continuing this effort. i believe senator akaka and senator inouye worked hard on this and i am glad to support your efforts today. >> thank you. anybody else? >> senator blumenthal. >> mr. chairman, i ask to be added as a co-sponsor and i strongly support this measure which recognizes the contributions of these individuals and their families to the united states. >> i also would ask to be a co-sponsor. if there is no further debate, those in favor signify by saying aye.

opposed. the ayes have it. the ayes do have it. senator whitehouse, you had a -- >> yeah. >> issue you wanted to bring up. >> senator graham and i wanted to have a brief colloquy. we don't have an amendment at this point but we had a hearing in the judiciary committee about the danger of cyberattacks and particularly about the intellectual property theft that's taken place, wholesale. we had some suggestions about ways that we could help use the visa process to defend our country. and the two best suggestions that senator graham and i intend to work on were to allow the secretary to designate entities like, say, a foreign university that is stacked with hackers who are attacking our country, close them out for visas. because they are supporting these attacks on our country. or allow someone who will come to the united states to testify or work against or crack these

cybernetworks. so i'll turn to senator graham for his comment. but i think this will be a useful thing for our colleagues to work on, and we intend to bring an amendment on the floor. >> well, the hearing that senator whitehouse chaired was eye opening about the threats we face. i don't know how many bank robberies are but somewhere in the low hundreds. the amount of money stolen from cybertheft is staggering and the amount of bad actors out there, sometimes nation states, are growing. and one of the suggestions was what senator whitehouse just outlined. access to this country can be denied people who are stealing our money or stealing our intellectual property. and this is one way to fight back. so senator whitehouse has just been really a strong leader on cyber-- he's educated me and that's no easy thing to do on any topic, particularly

cybersecurity, but i'm a big believer that this is a national security nightmare in the making. one way to fight back is use our immigration system against bad actors. i'm sure the committee will be willing to explore this. >> senator graham and i look forward to working on any colleagues as this goes forward. i thank the chairman for yielding at this time. >> thank you. our next amendment is by senator cruz, number 4. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up cruz 4. this is the second of two amendments i've introduced to increase legal immigration. i am a strong advocate of legal immigration. i think we are and should be a nation of immigrants. i think we should continue to welcome and celebrate legal immigrants and we should in particular expand the avenues for those who would come to seek the american dream to come here following the law and under legal processes. in particular, what this amendment would do is take the

current cap of 675,000 and it would double it to 1.35 million. and i would note this is an increase significantly beyond what the gang of eight bill does. this increases legal immigration more than the gang of eight. it does several things. one, it consolidates segmented visas. and it creates real and transparent caps and it treats all immigrants equally by eliminating the per country caps. right now the per country caps impact in particular four nations, china, india, mexico and the philippines, all of whom face significant limitations under the per country caps is especially with respect to family --, china, mexico, mexico and the fill fines, i don't think we -- philippines, i don't think we should limit those. we should eliminate those arbitrary caps. what this does on the employment side, it consolidates five existing

employment base visas into a single high scale employment ase visa that's allocated at 6 ,705 visas and has a visa for all workers in occupations designated by the department of labor as having shortages of an additional 405,000 visas. r stem workers, those with science, technology, engineering and mathematics, their fast track for priority date. every year we educate tens of thousands of graduate students in mathematics and engineering and computer science and then we send them back to their home countries to start businesses and create jobs. it makes no sense. this amendment would fix that problem. you know, economists have concluded that an increase in foreign stem workers of 1% of total employment increased the wages of native college-age educated workers, both stem and

nonstem, over the period of 1990 to 2000 by 4% to 6%. these high-skilled workers are pro-growth. they make our economy stronger. they create jobs and we should be welcoming legal immigrants. in addition, this amendment would have family-based green cards of 337,500, increasing in the aggregate the total number of legal immigration that would come in. this amendment reduces the bureaucracy, one of the great frustrations so many legal immigrants have, is dealing with the red tape in bureaucracy of the immigration system. this creates a user-friendly unlined portal for legal immigrants to deal with and requires answers within 60 days. i would note that one study ound that 25.3% of new technology and engineering businesses founded between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder.

according to the small business administration, immigrant entrepreneurs start 17% of all new businesses in the united states, and more than 40% of fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. and those companies, i would note, today employ more than 10 million people and generate revenues of more than $4.2 trillion. in the process of reforming education, i believe we need to secure the borders. i believe we need to treat legal immigrants fairly, and i believe we need to expand and improve and streamline legal immigration in this regard, i've said before, the best aspects of the gang of eight bill, deal with legal immigration but i don't believe they go far enough. i think we should expand it more. we should welcome those coming to this country for the american dream, seeking to work hard, provide for their kids to give them a better life, to make our economy stronger, to

create jobs and that's exactly what this amendment would do. i would ask the committee to support it. >> mr. chairman. >> the senator from new york. >> our bill, we have a balance, very delicate balance. we increase the million of employment base, of course. we also leave room for family. this amendment would cut back on family by more than 25% and changes the balance. and i would urge it be defeated. >> mr. chairman. i thank the chair for recognizing me and while this amendment would allow more immigrants into the country than i think we are confident in doing is not an excessive number and the policy provisions in it are very good. unlike the bill that's on the floor today, it actually does enact policy changes that are significant and noticeable and that would make our immigration

system better. it would be more like the progressive system in canada and, again, we have an objection there's a delicate balance. that can't be upset. presumably, mr. zuckerberg and mr. trump and others have agreed on certain matters about these numbers. i think we should use our responsibilities as senators to vote the national interest. i believe this is a step in the i would ask for a roll call vote. two things. one, with respect to my friend from new york, he's mistaken in his comment that this amendment would reduce family visas. indeed, as it's structured, what it would allow is those who are coming here for jobs to come with their nuclear families. and so part of family immigration is moved to the employment-based system, to keep nuclear families in tact.

but to do it in way that makes our economy stronger, that welcomes those who are coming here to work for the american dream. i would note also that the comment that this bill was reached as a balanceed and a delicate norks is a reflection -- negotiation is a reflection of the voices that played a mainly part in drafting this bill -- major part in drafting this bill and in particular i would suggest it's the bosses of yupes who would like to see legal -- unions who would like to see legal immigration limited. i think we need to expand legal immigration and at the same time secure the borders. we need to respect rule of law and welcome immigrants and i think it speaks volumes that my friends on the democratic side of the aisle are presumably going to vote no, we don't want tokespand legal immigration, we don't want more people to come for the american dream. why? because we've cut a deal in backroom negotiations with union bosses who have told us, don't let too much legal

immigration happen. i think we need to welcome those coming here legally and at the same time fix the problems so we prevent future illegal immigration, we secure the border, we don't encourage the human tragedies that the status quo, the broken system right now encourages. >> clerk will call the roll. >> pass. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye.

>> no. >> no. >> senator feinstein will be as a no in person. >> senator shumer will be registered as no in person. hard to miss. >> six ayes and 12 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to and we have before us now number nine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up and ask consent to adopt a second-degree amendment -- >> it is amended by the second-degree amendment that is before the committee. >> mr. chairman, this amendment modifies coons one which the committee adopted last week and which requires enhanced notification to individuals, whenever the e-verify system returns a confirmation, a

nonconfirmation or a further action notice. as senator flake and the department of homeland security both raised some concerns that that amendment might be burdensome. so the second-degree amendment reduces that possible burpped by limiting the enhanced notification requirement, only to those cases where the system returns a nonconfirmation or a further action notice. and i'd like to thank senator flake for working with me on crafting a compromised solution here and thank the chairman's indulgence for allowing me to address those concerns in this committee before the bill's reported. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes did it have -- did have it. the ayes do have. our next amendment is moved by senator grassley, number 19. >> do you have 19? >> 19. >> mr. chairman, i've been told by senator durbin and senator shumer's staff that if i modify my amendment instead of having

quarterly reports, to have annual reports, it would be satisfactory to them is that correct? >> i can't speak for them but i would tell you that i would certainly agree to it if it was annual. >> then why don't we vote on it and won't bother to speak? >> shall we assume it's modified to have the word annual? >> annual instead of quarterly. >> as so modified, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes do have it. senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up hirono number 10, providing relief for u.s. citizens suffering extreme hardship. my amendment would permit a u.s. citizen, suffering an extreme hardship, to petition for a sibling or adult married child under the family immigration system. although we may approach immigration reform from different perspectives, i think we all share the same goal of

having an immigration system that makes our country's economy stronger. we all want immigrants to come here to be successful. anybody, whether an immigrant or a natural-born citizen, has a better chance of being successful if he or she has a strong family around them to help them through the rough times. a family who can pool their resources to start a business or help push the next generation farther than they could dream for themselves. sometimes the only family an immigrant has is a sibling. i am concerned that the merit-based system in the bill will not work for many siblings, particularly siblings who are unmarried women. in most country, women do not have as many opportunities for education or career advancements as men have. i fear that the merit-based system takes -- puts a wall around our country that will block unmarried women from being able to immigrate to the united states. and just a little while ago, my

friend, senator grassley, noted that the overwhelming majority of h-1-b visas go to men. i'm also concerned with the asian families who will be disproportionately harmed by eliminating these categories. admissions under the sibling category during the last decade were over 50% from asian countries. how will these families be united without the sibling category? however, my amendment would only allow a very limited number of siblings and adult married children over age 31 to come to this country, only in the limited cases of a u.s. need of assistance when suffering extreme hardship. this is a tiny change that would only be utilized in the most sympathetic cases. meeting the extreme hardship requirement under my amendment would be difficult. i have a statement in support of this measure that i ask

unanimous consent to have entered into the record. i understand that my amendment is in conflict with the agreement that the gang of eight reached on this bill. and i respect the agreement that they have. i know my colleagues, senator shumer and durbin, support family, they certainly support the asian american community, and if they were not part of the gang of eight i believe they would support this limited amendment. however, i think that we need to go on record on family immigration and i do ask for a roll call vote on my amendment. >> i think -- >> mr. chairman. >> i understand there is opposition but i think it's a good amendment. i think that it is done to encourage family unity. but -- and i'll vote for it. nor franken -- senator franken. >> mr. chairman, in minnesota

we have two communities that this would really mean a lot to. the somali community there and the hmong community. in both places they come from places where there has been a lot of conflict and in a lot of cases a sibling acts as a parent, when parents have been killed. so this would mean a lot to the hmong community and the somali community, both communities in minnesota and we have the largest per capita hmung community in the country and one of the largest somali. so i vote yes. >> i wanted to commend senator hirono for her advocacy on behalf of family reunification. like senator franken i've had a number of cases come through my office where this narrowly crafted and i think appropriate amendment would have made a real difference. thank you for your hard work on this. i intend to vote yes. >> senator graham and senator

blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find myself in opposition to the amendment for a couple of reasons. number one, i've talked to asian american lawmakers about family reunification, not unsympathetic to the plight of families, that's for darn sure. but i am intent on trying to create a new legal immigration system in the future based on merit. and i've made many concessions here. backlog reduction for family based on petitions pending in the last five years, will you come in under the old system. if you're adult siblings. employment-based petitions pending for the last three years. so if you're in line now in the last five years or three years, you're going to get in under the old system. four years from now we're going to start a new system. and that new system is going to have a family component where you'll earn points if you're a family member in a certain category. if you're a spouse or minor children, you're going to be able to get in through the

family association. if you're an adult married children under 31, you'll get in. but we're going to recapture 138,000 visas, senator cruz, that were being given out under the family-based system, and use those in the merit-based system in the future. >> does the senator yield to a question? >> if i could just finish. this would affect the family-based allocation we have, i've been told by my staff, up to 6%. it would be a carveout. so, you made a point about senator durbin and shumer, if they were not in the gang of eight, they would not -- they would probably be supporting you. well, if i wasn't in the gang of eight, they wouldn't be -- there wouldn't be eight. and all i can tell you is that there's a lot of things that i will tolerate but the one thing i can't give in on and the only thing i've ever asked really of my colleagues on the other side, is that when we start over in the future, we're going

to have a merit-based immigration system, it's going to be economic-based, you're going to have to earn points to get into the country based on the skills we need and we're going to make an economic-based decision with a family component and that's what has drawn me to this issue for years. i respect what you're trying to do but it would upset this balance, in my view, dramatically and i think i've been more than fair of trying to clear the line that exists today. but four years from now there's going to be a new way of doing this and that is, to me, the way we should have been doing it for years. so i respectfully oppose the amendment. >> does the senator yield to a question? >> yes, ma'am, i will. >> there's a question. you yield for a question? >> thank you. i too would be foral about aed system -- for a balanced system. could you share with us how you think that unmarried women would fare under the merit system? >> well, i would say that if

you have a family association you will get 10 points. and you'll have to learn to speak the language -- if you learn to speak the language at a certain level, you get more points. and if you have a skill we need, you come in on your own. but with all due respect to the senator, what i'm trying to do is have a family component within a merit-based immigration system, not turn immigration into a chain migration family-based immigration. this takes us down the road that i do not want to go back to, because for us to survive in the future, we're going to have to welcome people to our country on our terms, not theirs. and there will be a family component to merit-based immigration but i do believe that the balance we've achieved is good for the country long-term and there will be a family component and with all due respect, senator, i got calls from people in the house and i've allowed people in the line today that have been waiting patiently to be cleared under the old system. i'm trying to say, four years from now, we're going to start a new system. and it's never enough. we eliminated the diversity

program. but we did 10,500 for the caribbean african tree and i did that because i want to grow the vote. it goes against what i've been trying to do. but i'm trying to get this bill over the line. but the only thing that i've ever asked quite frankly is i don't want to beat on the 11 million, they got to earn their way into the country. but i've asked for starting over, a new way of doing business around immigration that would make it more economic-based and i'm going to continue to insist on that for my participation. >> senator blumenthal is recognized next. then senator shumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to join this measure as a co-sponsor. and say that i support it not only because it's humane and just, but -- justice, but also -- just, but also of great economic benefit to our country. when someone in this country, a citizen here, is suffering extreme hardship, and i'm

quoting from the language of the amendment, extreme hardship , if such brother, sister, son or daughter, a very limited category of people, was not here to help, then almost certainly others among us, either taxpayers or other relatives or someone in society would be bearing that burden. so i think in the long run it is of benefit to all of us to approve this amendment. i want to join in thanking senator hirono for her very valiant efforts on family reunification. thank you. >> thank you. senator shumer. >> mr. chairman, i reluctantly am against this amendment. let me say why. as senator graham said, we had a very careful balance in this bill. there's a large number of people who want to see family immigration be full and robust. and then there are a large group of people that want to

see us move to an employment-based system. and we've tried to come up with a fair compromise to do both. and families do extremely well under this bill. i mean, as senator graham said, our republican colleagues, against their own wishes, increased family migration for people on the waiting list, people, for instance, in the philippines who would have had to wait 23 years, china, 18 years, other countries many more years, will come in much sooner. we also have a petition system where if you're a citizen and you have an adult child within the first 18 months, you can petition to have them come. this is a good amendment. but we could come up with amendments on the other side that increase the takeaway family and due job migration and it's a careful balance. if i was -- if we didn't have this balance, i would support this amendment. but, again, for the sake of

trying to find the bipartisan compromise that we need to pass a bill, i am going to reluctantly vote no. >> mr. chairman. >> the senator from illinois. >> i was afraid if we stayed here too long something like this would happen. along comes an amendment which i totally support but it challenges the reason i'm sitting in this chair and the reason we're all gatherered here. the reason we have a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will help 11 million americans and really bring some justice to this system is because we sat down and reached an agreement and we had to give and take. there were a lot of gives on that side of the table and i want to thank my colleague, senator flake, and senator graham, time and again who have stood by the agreement when it wasn't easy politically. i feel duty-bound to do the same thing at this moment. and i will just tell senator hirono that your heart's in the right place, your amendment's elp u in any other way

i can to achieve your goal because i think it's a worthy one. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from rhode island. >> let me say how much i respect the position that senator schumer and senator durbin have had to take and have taken. we would not even be voting on this amendment if it weren't for this bill and the work that they and senator graham and senator flake accomplished to get us to this point. there are times when you are essential to putting together an important piece of legislation like this, when you have to stand by the agreement that brought everyone together, and i respect that very, very much. and i think frankly we should all respect that very, very much. >> mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry. >> may i? very brief. >> senator feinstein. >> i know this is tough for my colleagues. and it's not like i -- you know, when i was 21 when my mom

died, 22 when my dad died. my is sister was 13. i had to adopt her for her to get air force benefits in case something happened to me when i went on active dutyy. i get it very much about the relationships of siblings. had a lot of people help my sister and myself. but the bottom line is that i've listened and we've allowed people who have been waiting in line for the last five years to get in without the merit-based system. i've been bending over backwards to try to create a real family component. but this is what's been driving my train about immigration, is to replace in the future a date certain, three to four years from now, where we change the way we do immigration, there's a family component but i am not going to go back to chain migration. we're living in a very competitive world and these visas have to be earned and i can assure you the way we've set up the points system, they can't be earned -- can be

earned by anybody who wants to come here and work to get here. on your own, if you have to. and as to hard votes, these are two hard votes for my friends from new york and illinois, they have been great partners, but senator flake and i have been voting for six days against things that we don't like. so, glad to have you on board. [laughter] >> we're out of time here is what we're saying here. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein, then we can -- >> i want to comment, first of all, on senator graham's comment. i was on the last gang many years ago with senator kennedy and the world should know he's absolutely consistent. this is where he was then, that was the formulation of what was called the grand bargain then. i think it's been a unique process because those people who were members of the group that put this together have stood together and have voted against amendments that they

felt would be a violation of the bipartisan agreement that brought both sides together. my hope is that that bipartisan agreement is enough so that what happened on the floor with this bill in the last time we tried it doesn't happen again. and i trust that that will be the case. the last time members changed their votes, this time i don't think it can happen. i hope it won't happen. and i must say i are, i think that this amendment -- this amendment will drive apart that bipartisan compromise. the question comes, is it worth no bill? well, i was there and saw no bill. these many, many years ago. and i have come to the decision that no, it is not. from my constituency, california, this is the one issue that people have commented on the most.

and yet this country is so broad in the number of immigrants it takes. i mean, i think we take more immigrants now a year than all of the other industrialized countries put together. and this broadens it even more. so i think it's a fair system as-is. senator schumer pointed out some of the offsets that increase the scope for people who are adult and remote -- more remote family members. and i know it's hard for people to accept but i want a bill and i think this committee wants a bill. we hope today we've gained senator hatch's support. i don't know whether that's true or not. we have senator graham's support. we need to keep the support. and so i am a no vote on the amendment. >> i hear all these various gangs. i want to look for the ink,

what's the tattoo that each one of you? sorry. >> mr. chairman. >> senator schumer -- senator hirono, you've asked for a roll call vote, is that correct? >> yes. and may i clarify that this is not an amendment that is about chain migration. in fact, it is a very narrowly crafted amendment that does not reopen the sibling category, nor does it reopen the married children over 31. it is for a very specific situation of u.s. citizens in extreme hardship. i'd like to provide that clarification. thank you very much. >> clerk -- sorry, senator sessions. >> do i believe that the gang of eight has a right to do as they wish. but i do believe the senator from hawaii has a right to offer an amendment and it's problematic for me that good amendments may not be accepted. the d also note that

point system that's in the bill is something i support and have supported for some time. but it only involves from eight to 16% -- 8% to 16% of the total number of people that would be coming in in the future. it's not nearly like the canadian system that's much larger than that. i'd just share that information for my colleagues. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mrs. sign if stein. >> no. >> mr. schumer. >>. no >> mr. durbin. >> no. >> mr. whitehouse. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no by proxy. > no by proxy. >> narme -- mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, the vote is seven ayes, 11 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the amendment by senator sessions. believe it's number 15. >> yes. two or eight, 15. >> so, let me just be sure i understand. number two and number eight are withdrawn? >> yes. >> without objection, they're withdrawn. number 15. >> this deals with an important matter that i think -- i believe our committee and the ang and others would recognize

. when a guy attempted to blow up the plane to detroit, he had a valid visa. after that, his father reported that he had become radicalized and raised questions about him being a danger. as a result of that, no action was taken to revoke his visa. one of the problems that we discovered, and it was raised in the homeland security senate committee on homeland security and government affairs, was that secretary napolitano said that the issue of who issues revocations lies in a half-cast world. where the secretary of homeland security remains highly reluctant to revoke a visa that has been issued by the secretary of state. even when there are clear grounds to do so, her authority remains unclear.

she said, quote, well, at both the i.a.p., that's the immigration advisory program level, and at the visa security program level, there is a difficulty and the difficulty is they make the department a little bit pregnant. either we run visas or we don't. either we do revocations or we don't. but we live in a kind of half-cast world now and i think it's important and it's something -- and something ought to be done about it. to have this amendment simply would say that the secretary of homeland security, who's empowered and charged with protecting the national security, as opposed to the secretary of state, who's charged with the responsibility of protecting our national interests, foreign interests, have separate but valid by a cease to -- basises to seek the revocation of an individual's visa. this amendment would provide

concurrent authority to both ecretaries in initiating a revocation. it may well be that the secretary of homeland security will find information that they know ought to be acted on. i think they should be allowed to do so. it allows the state department to continue, of course, to revoke visas based on the interest that they have. i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment. >> mr. chairman. > the senator from new york. any time we have one of these bills, they really frustrate me. and as chairman of this committee, i am not in favor of court stripping legislation. i tell my colleagues as a matter of history, i recall once joining with another senator to fight a

court-stripping bill even though it would strip the court of jurisdiction or something where that particular senator totally disagreed with the court. he did not want to set the precedent. on the way out, we linked arms and senator barry goldwater and i thought we were the only two conservatives in the senate, as fought of course for -- senator schumer? >> thank you. thank you. i want to oppose this amendment on similar grounds that the chairman did. but let me give you some examples. because it takes away any judicial review whatsoever. that is not the hallmark of a democracy, no matter how you expand or -- so let me give you some examples. you're an h-1-b employee named microsoft named john smith. you're from england. but there's a different man named john smith on the watch list. under this amendment, d.h.s.

can come to the wrong john smith's house, take him in the middle of the night, deport him without ever letting him have the opportunity to prove that he's not that john smith. how about another one? you're a student from canada. the designated school officer forget to update the database to say you showed up at school. which you have to do under the terms of a student visa. this happens all the time. do we really want i.c.e. shows up to the library, taking that person away in handcuffs and putting them on a plane to canada? before they can explain their mistake? i have to say do we want to live in that kind of country? a country with no due process for any kind of people that we've invited to come here? i don't think so. o, you know, to give someone whose accused of something that would allow deportation, give them a hearing to have the

chance to prove the government's reasons for deporting you are wrong, that's part of the american way. i would urge this amendment be defeated. >> madam chairman. under current law the state department can revoke visas without a court review. it's an administrative power. people are here -- we need to get something cleared in our heads. >> will my colleague yield for a question? >> yes. >> they can then get a revocation hearing after that happens. >> under 8-u.s.c.-a, 120 1, the statute says, unless -- there shall be no means of judicial review, this is current law, including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28, or any habeas corpus provision of section 1361 and section 1651. of revocation under this subconnection -- subconnection -- subsection.

>> keep reading. it talks about remove hearing. >> a removal hearing of such revocation provides the sole ground of removal under that title. i don't believe that routinely these cases are subject to appeal in the courts. you have certain powers that are given to the executive branch. and a person that's here is here at the pleasure of the united states. and they're not entitled to have full trials on whether or not the pleasure of the united states has ended. i just -- i think you are constantly creating litigation in this bill that's going to go beyond anything we've done historically. it's going to create real problems, senator schumer. i know that immigration lawyers that you all have met with and talked with like to be able to litigate. but the problem is certain matters are subject to the decision of the united states. i'll be glad to continue to

review it but i don't think that you have review of these matters in a routine basis and i think the amendment is correct and i believe the secretary of homeland security absolutely needs to be given authority in this matter. >> thank you very much. senator, are you ready for the vote? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is lost. the next one is senator hirono, number 11. >> thank you. i call hirono amendment 11. this amendment would require a g.a.o. study of the impact of the new merit-based immigration system on families. this merit-based system is entirely new to the united states and it is difficult to predict how this new mechanism will impact future immigration. it is unclear if this new system will be sufficient to further our traditions of family unity and diversity. and whether certain types of

would-be immigrants will be effectively shut out of the system. so, under this amendment, the g.a.o. must submit a study no later than seven years after the date of enactment of this legislation, said he will look at specific issues. and really the study is to inform congress's future decisions affecting immigration. i urge my colleagues to support. >> thank you. i think we can do a voice vote on this. >> i think it's a good amendment. obviously we think what we've done strikes the right balance but there's nothing wrong and everything right with having g.a.o. study it and see where we came out. >> good. all those in favor of the amendment please say aye. opposed -- the amendment is passed. -- i don't will be have a list. >> ask nor sessions. >> senator sessions. do you have additional amendments? >> i do not. >> you do not? ooh.

all right. is that it? >> no, three more. >> three more. >> number five. > number five. >> thank you, senator feinstein. this is a short second amendment that i'm going to include in this amendment. this is very small but important which would potentially improve access to health care in communities around the country, by building on reforms we already included in the bill. included in the bill is an extension of the conrad 30 which was a program that allows doctors that study in our country from other countries to fulfill their requirements under the law, to do their residency in rural or underserved areas. so that they are not forced to go back to their home country when we have a need for physicians in these areas.

this was a bill that i introduced with senator moran, senator collins and senator high camp, as well as others. we have a shortage of doctors in this country, 63,000 doctors forecast to be a shortage by 2015. and over 130,000 by 2025. that's just over a decade from now. what we're doing here with the bill is that we are including an amendment that just clarifies the bill and it builds upon the bipartisan reforms already in the bill. >> excuse me. you brought a second agree to your amendment? >> we have a second agree because senator feinstein's amendment was supposed to include something -- >> your amendment -- >> -- senator rubio. >> by the second degree before us? >> right. i'm asking to include that second-degree -- >> we just did. >> ok, very good. and so, what this does, senator

feinstein's amendment, 13, which we adopted this morning, moved that dual intent provisions to a different part of the code but inadvertently left out the doctors. and we have worked this out with senator rubio and others and my second-degree just adds the doctors back in. >> i support the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. have we finished? >> senator sessions. >> senator sessions, we finished all the amendments except one? all right. i'd like to turn to an issue very important to me. and to many americans who are suffering from discrimination based on who we -- who they love. we filed two amendments to show there is more than one way to take discrimination out of our broken immigration system. i call up leahy amendment

number seven. which will be before the committee. in the experience of americans torn apart from the love of their lives by a current immigration system is heartbreaking. i have been married for more than 50 years. i can't fathom how it would feel if my government refused -- my gnize my and union. the law discriminates against me based on who i fell in love with more than five decades ago. i understand that not all states have reached a point of being as compassionate, fair as my home state of vermont. but in just the time since immigration legislation has been pending, three states have joined vermont in providing marriage equality. those three states are all represented on this committee. delaware, rhode island and minnesota. i know the members here representing those states want

families treated fairly under their state law. but regardless of these profound state-led efforts, reforms the law to remove discrimination, federal law continues to discriminate against these lawful marriages. thousands of lawfully married couples in 12 states and the district of columbia are discriminated against every day and i'm committed to ending that discrimination. my amendment would not change a single state law. the issue of marriage has long been a state law issue until the defensive marriage act was passed in the late 1990's. many of us on this committee want to see that law returned. because now it discriminates against lawful marriages, it makes thousands of american families less secure. in the immigration context, it means if you're an american, you fall in love with someone of the same-sex from a different country, and you get married legally, your spouse will not be treated like any

other immigrant spouse would be by your federal government. my amendment would change that. i don't want to be the senator who asks americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country. discriminating against a segment of americans because of who they love is a travisiest, it's ripping many american families apart. i know this issue is important to many who serve on this committee. before i speak further, i'd like to hear from other members , especially from those who drafted this bill who for whatever reason decided not to remove discrimination from our current immigration system in their legislative proposal. so i would withhold for a moment, senator graham, do you wish to speak? and then anybody else who wishes to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a lot of folks have

been wondering what would you do about this issue and how you would handle it. and i want to be the first to say that your passion for marriage equality, for if your view ending discrimination has been consistent and it is respected. what we're trying to do here is hold together a strong but fragile coalition, i know people in vermont have a different view of marriage than -- and the definition that maybe people in south carolina and many folks on our side of the aisle. the country is going through a debate state by state as to how to define marriage, who should do it, should it be a court, should it be the people of the state through referendum. when it comes to immigration reform, we've put together the most effective coalition i've seen since 2005. evangelical christians and the catholic church have weighed in a fashion that has made it possible for a guy like me to

survive the emotional nature of this debate and i think over time grow the debate, grow the vote in the republican party and quite frankly in other parts -- in certain parts of the democratic party. and i've been asked a lot about what would this mean. if we try to redefine marriage within the immigration debate, it would mean that the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart, because no matter how well -meaning you are, and i know you are, there are many folks who support this bill who won't agree to redefine marriage for immigration purposes. there are a lot of people in south carolina who support this bill, we find that a bridge too far, and the courts are dealing with delma. there will be plenty of opportunity i think to bring amendments on the floor and there will certainly be plenty of opportunity for the congress to deal with their role in defining marriage and what areas of the law it should be redefined, if any.

i would just urge my colleagues to understand that traditional marriage is a well accepted concept in south carolina and many other places in the country. and as i've just indicated, many states are defining marriage differently as they have the right to do. when it comes to passing this immigration bill, to interject the redefinition of marriage would be a bridge too far. we're very close i think to creating a product that will solve a very difficult problem a long-time in the making and i would just urge my colleagues to understand that this would fracture the coalition. i could not support the bill if we redefined marriage in the immigration bill, away from what people in my state consider to be the proper definition. i've asked a lot of the people of south carolina to be openminded about changing our

immigration laws because they don't work. and i have an obligation to listen to the people of south carolina who feel very comfortable with the definition of marriage in a traditional fashion. as we debate this, mr. chairman, there will be no stronger voice for changing the way america interacts in terms of same-sex partners and traditional marriage than yourself. you'll have plenty of opportunities to express yourself and to stand up for the people of vermont. but as to immigration, this is the best chance i've seen since i've been dealing with the issue and there's only so much market to be borne in emotional issues like immigration and i support traditional marriage without animosity. i'm not married. i guess maybe, you know, maybe i shouldn't speak at all about it. but i do believe that the people of my state and the

people of other states who have gone a different wathan vermont , that this would throw the coalition out of balance and as to the evangelical christian community and the catholic church, your support has been outcome determinative for a guy like me and i don't want to put you in a position of having to abandon the bill at this late stage. so not only could i not support your amendment, mr. chairman, it would break the coalition in my view. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> yes, sir. >> does the senator see anything in my amendment that would change in any way the right of his state to define marriage as they want? >> no, sir. >> nor -- or is there anything in this amendment that would state his state under law to have same-sex marriage? >> no, sir. i do not, but i see in your amendment a requirement by me and others who disagree with

the definition of marriage that so you passionately believe in and you would be making me vote on a concept that i think -- you got me on immigration. you don't have me on marriage. i just can't tell you any more directly. if you want to keep me on immigration, let's stay on immigration. thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> the senator from california. >> mr. chairman, as you know, i am the author of the repeal of the defense against marriage act. we have 32 co-sponsors. we have watched as 12 states have moved to permit same-sex marriage. we have watched as the issue is now before the american supreme court. and one of the cases is an equal protection case. the bill is being held up pending the supreme court decision. the supreme court may just settle all of this. and if it does it can make this question moot because the same

immigration law that applies for heterosexual partners would apply for same-sex partners. what this amendment by senator leahy does is essentially codify the current treatment of all marriages, which already are recognized in immigration law based on place of marriage. it would ensure that same-sex couples are accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to immigration. nothing more, nothing less. and here's what it would mean. a citizen or a lawful permanent resident could sponsor a same-sex spouse just as marleyed couple does today and it would mean -- married couples do today and it would mean the fiance of an american could come into the country in order to get married in a state that permitted same-sex marriage within 90 days. in short, same-sex marriages would be entitled to equal

treatment under the law. there would be no need to create a different category called permanent partnership for them alone. i think this sounds like the fairest approach. but here's the problem. like senator hirono's amendment, we now know that this is going to blow the agreement apart. so the question comes and i've been on the front of this debate publicly, privately, everywhere else. and i don't want to blow this bill apart. i don't want to lose senator graham's vote. because senator graham's vote will represent and be used as a rationale for dozens of other votes who will then not vote for the immigration bill on the floor. i believe that we have a very good chance of the supreme court finding in favor of a

violation of the equal protection law. because the case that's brought has to do with a death tax benefit that was denied in a same-sex couple who had been married for a substantial period of time. i think there's good justification to say, hey, that's an equal protection problem under the constitution. however, you know, we are ready to move in any event to bring this bill to this committee and have a full discussion. i am for what senator leahy is proposing. i would just in all good -- i would just implore him to hold up on this amendment at this time. you have support, i think we're going to get it done, i think we can get it done in a way that will not blow apart this bill. >> you know, i hear people who

support what i'm doing and people who disagree. the senators know many of us have a choice in this congress to change our committee assignments. i stayed on judiciary for a number of reasons. i believe strongly in the rule of law. i've fought court-stripping bills because i believe that the three branches of government and the checks and balances are extraordinarily important to a democracy. but i also believe and i was brought up in a family that believed in the equal treatment of all people. and i understand what you're saying. about immigration laws. but i wonder if our grandchildren will look back on this day in the same way we 40 back on the laws of years ago. and we ask, how could the

supreme court even have had to vs. e the matter of loving virginia? why were those laws even on the books? and are notted and upheld -- and respected and upheld? where was the congress who should have spoken up? but i said i would certainly hear from any senator who wished to speak. as well as the senator from arizona. then we'll decide where to go from here. as you know, i've respected every single senator on this committee and not blocked anybody from bringing up an amendment. i followed this to the end so we could get to all the other amendments but i cannot emphasize enough to the senators how strongly i feel about this. senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to say from the outset what a pleasure it's been to be so new in the senate and to be involved in a process like this.

for years now we've been hearing about dysfunction in the congress, we've all suffered in our public opinion polling and what people think of this place. and i think that this process that we've gone through in the last couple of days, couple of weeks, are a real antidote to that. when you think about how you've opened up this process, we haven't cut one person off at any time, you've allowed everybody to offer every amendment. and i think that people respect that. i certainly do. with regard to this issue, this immigration bill is a heavy lift, as we all know, going through this process. and we can only make that lift if we have the broadest coalition possible. and we've endeavored to keep that coalition together. many people on this committee on both sides of the aisle, we joked a minute ago about taking more tough votes maybe between

myself and senator graham, but i know that those on the other side of the aisle have taken tough votes as well. and have reare a -- refrained from introducing amendments that they know would likely pass but might upset this fragile coalition that we have. and i think -- i know that i appreciate, i think many of us do, but this is an issue that is being addressed by the courts right now. i think that it would be -- it would certainly upset the coalition that we have. certainly we in arizona, like in south carolina, have spoken on this issue and it would -- it would certainly mean that this bill would not move forward and that would be a real shame given how far we've come and the work that's gone into this. by had committee and by you, mr. chairman. so i thank you for this process and what we're going through and i would hope that the

amendment could be withdrawn and that we can move this process forward. thank you. >> are there any other senators who wish to speak? the senator from illinois. >> mr. chairman, thank you. co-sponsor of your bill, uniting american families act, i'm a co-sponsor of senator feinstein's bill, which would eliminate doma. i join with you and others in a brief sent to the court. my position, i hope, is very clear on this. what we witnessed here in this room, though, is an ordering of priorities that has involved a lot of personal decisions. senator hirono raised an issue very important in her state and in her community. a heartfelt issue and i understand that completely. senator blumenthal had several opportunities to offer gun control amendments on this bill . after he went through the tragedy in his state of newtown, connecticut, in

december. he withdrew those amendments. i can tell you i know firsthand how difficult it was for him to make that decision. and now many of us will face the same decision with the amendment that is pending. i believe in my heart of hearts that would what you're doing is the right and just think and -- thing and i admire you for it very much, mr. chairman. but i believe this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill. there are approximately 250,000 lgbt undocumented immigrants in america. that would benefit from the passage of immigration reform. i want to make certain they have that chance. i want to make certain that after waiting and working for more than 12 years, that the dreamers have their chance. there will be another day, mr. chairman, and many of us will be by your side to see this become the law. but i hope that today we can keep this coalition together and pass immigration reform.

>> my friend from illinois . eaks of the dreamers nobody has been a stronger advocate for them in either the house or the senate, in either party, or in any administration than the senator from illinois. i admire him for that. i would also, though, when i talk to legally married couples in my state, who rlealy married under our laws, laws passed not by a court but by our legislature, and they say, but we're -- we can't dream because e're the same-sex. and i ask myself, how would i feel if my wife who i've been married to for 50 years, if we were separated that way. i understand what the senator

said and i appreciate what he has said about me and this process, as i do the senator from arizona and the senator from south carolina. and i have tried to be fair and open to everybody, we are still coming to the end of this but senator shumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to add my voice in thanking you for an open and fair process. it's helped our bill immeasurably, to have the ability to go forward, let everyone offer their amendments and learn what the arguments are. i don't think we will make the mistakes that were made six, seven years ago because we've had this crucible which has been fairly and adeptly run by you. i'd also like to say that i know your passion on this issue. i don't doubt it for a moment. it's consistent with your record and your beliefs and i know how much you care about it. i want to say that, you know, this is one of the most ex trutionatingly difficult

decisions that i have had to make in my 30-plus years in public office. i believe and desire that this amendment should be included in the final bill. i know our constitution, i know our core principles and they call for equality and equal protection under the law. i believe not to do this is rank discrimination. this amendment's different than helping the irish or the poles or high-tech or anything else. it is rank discrimination. i agree with that. understand i believe in it strongly. i was one of the very first in this chamber to come out for full marriage equality for same-sex partners. i was proud of my state of new york which was at the van guard of getting marriage equality to our citizens and i helped make that happen by lobbying state legislators. it's a basic principle of fairness. that you should not treat one class of people any different than another.

yet that is the cruel reality of our current federal law, if you happen to be in a committed same-sex relationship with a person who is not american. i've met with these folks. they've come to my office. i have felt their pain. i have felt their agony. should same-sex partners have the same rights as heterosexual partners under the immigration law? should lesbian and gay individuals have the same opportunity as different-sex couples to sponsor their partners for citizenship? absolutely. i believe so strongly that they should. because for too many of our fellow americans, current law is inadequate, unfair, discriminatory, un-american. it needs to change. that's why i've been a lead sponsor of the uniting american families act for a number of years. that's why my office worked so hard on cases where the unfairness of current law has kept loving couples harshly separated.

understand and -- and i believe the american people support this. they support equal treatment under the law for all people. and i have urged inclusion of its principles in this immigration bill publicly, privately, individually, with my colleagues, both democrat and republican. there are many others who disagree. some of those who are opposed but are my partners. they don't believe that they are against it, they believe it will rip apart the bill and we will have no bill. our partnership is one of mutual respect and frankness. i have spoken to them. i know how deeply they feel the issue and i don't get on a high moral horse and think my position is better than theirs as much as i disagree with theirs, as much as i take opposition to their reasonings

and conclusions, i can persuade, bargain. i cannot compel to believe and act otherwise. they have made it perfectly clear in plain words and multiple occasions if this provision is added to the bill, they will have no choice to abandon our collective effort and once in a generation effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform will be finished. i wish it were otherwise and i firmly believe it will be otherwise and assume that our political parties and institutions are changing for the better on the question of full equality for our gay and lesbian neighbors and friends and fellow americans. but sadly, that is not the case today. and this body, and this committee or this decision must be made.

the bottom line is that in the political reality in which we operate, the senate and more broadly, the u.s. congress, those who hold differently on this question have more than enough power to prevent passage, either as a stand-alone bill or as part of the immigration bill. and if we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away. they have said it publicly. they have told me privately, i believe them. the result, no equality, no immigration bill. everyone loses. what can be accomplished via this comprehensive bill for 11 million people in the shadows, for the security and prosperity of our nation is too vital, too rare to let fail now. much as it pains me, i cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill.

i'm a politician. . d that means i know it will be little comfort to those in the lg bmp t community but this won't be the only opportunity to accomplish this goal. they will express their disappointment, their anger at the decision today, i understand that. but i want to let them know, i will be here and ready to work at you, the lgbt community each turn after this one to advance the cause of legal equality. this is far from our last battle together.

>> mr. chairman. >> senator franken. >> this is the definition of the hobson's choice. i believe in equality. i believe in equal protection under the law. i have been -- i have the luxury of getting into this business later in life than some people for was never publicly ever anything other than equality for marriage. think senator durbin and senator schumer have said it, so i don't want to drag this out.

we are so proud in minnesota, senator klobuchar and i, that we became the 12th state -- get resolved hopefully sooner than later. i wish my colleagues on the other side felt differently. 10 ge will, maybe about years ago, about that long ago, said that kids his daughter's age, his daughter's friends, when they find out that a friend is gay, is about as interesting to them as learning they are left-handed. they are i find out gay, it's interesting. it's wrong. it's wrong to discriminate

against people. -- i do not want , who would t people be hurt by this, by this bill not passing, by this whole bill not passing, to be heard by this falling apart. >> let me say this and isn't going to cut off anybody else who wishes to speak, and i do appreciate the fact the fact that i have given everyone the opportunity to speak. on this senator, not committee, not of my party, speak on the radio and say if i included this, it would kill all immigration efforts. and i had hoped that that was

simply rhetoric for the radio talk show. i have realized over the last two days what i heard is not. i realize fixing this country's broken immigration policy is this committee's top priority. i want to work on immigration, to use my experience i had to help bring together people who go across the political spectrum in this committee. men and women i respect greatly in both parties. -- they ny americans are counting on us to produce the best legislation possible. they want to help millions of people who are living in the shadows and also face discrimination and exploitation. i think of my maternal

grandparents who i loved deeply when they came to this country, my parents who i love deeply who came to this country. and so many others i have met in my state and elsewhere and i believe this legislation is going to make us safer and help us spur the economy. not the bill i would have drafted. it falls short of what i had hoped we could have accomplished, but it may be the best of what we can do. so it isn't with a heavy heart as a result of my conclusion that the senator i heard not on this committee that i heard on that radio talk show who said -- the islation would whole immigration legislation would be killed if if i added this anti-discrimination amendment. withhold with mold --

the leahy amendments at this point and will not be before us now at this markup and we will go to final passage soon. i think there are other senators seeking recognition. and i say this with a heavy heart. you know, i look at what my state went through on this issue and timely got through the debate and said, well, wait a inute, museum ks are human beings. vermont senator from said you have two people who love each other and make each other better, we are all better. if you have two people who love each other and married to each other and one outside of this country, shouldn't they be joined together in this country. so i would hope that senators

join with me to get this done at some point. and i will yield the floor to whoever who wants to go to recognize. >> i want to thank you for the way you have conducted in. i hope this is the last one i participate in, too. you have really handled this tough issue well. your passion is known. but i want to let you know there is passion out there by people who disagree with you on marriage and i'm not going to accept for one minute if you believe traditional marriage is the way america ought to be that you are inferior. we will have this debate. and atholic church evangelical church, the debate should be done outside this bill. you have to get people who

disagree. there are people in the house that want to stand up for the unborn in the immigration bill. there are people in the house who believe there is nothing more precious than life and life begins at conception and we shouldn't sit on the sidelines watching millions of babies being aborted including babies aborted in the illegal system and wanted to take the legal definition of abortion that i don't think ta that would have helped the cause in the senate. what would you say if the house put language in a bill by preserving the life of the unborn. i told them when it got to the senate you are destroying the best chance i have ever seen for immigration reform and i'm glad they didn't interject abortion in this debate. but when it comes to debate what america should be like and what

kind of citizens we should have and who should create them, you will have people who disagree with you in marriage and will hold their head up high and not shrink one bit. your decision today, mr. chairman, i think represents the best opportunity i have seen to get this bill passed, because there are people on our side passionate about a lot of things. so you have set an example for the rest of us to follow. and when the marriage debate comes up, you will be a leader and i will be out there telling the other side of the story. >> i'm sure of that. just before we go to final passage. both senator grassley and i will make short comments. senator klobuchar, senator bloomen that will, once they

have all spoken, senator grassley and i will speak and we will have final passage. senator whitehouse and senator hatch. >> i didn't want to close without expressing my appreciation to the committee but particularly to senator durbin, to senator schumer, to senator graham and to senator flake, who have carried the banner of the group of senators that originally forged this compromise and made all of this work possible and in addition, chairman, i think there have been people out here a lot longer than i who have been through a lot more markups. i think lindsay is older than i am and i think this has been very impressively done and your chair manship and the way you have worked with the ranking member, you set a good standard

for the senate. >> thank you very much. senator hatch. >> i want to compliment you for your approach here this evening and compliment all those who spoke on this very difficult issue. i also want to thank everybody who has worked hard on this bill, especially the gang of eight. there are people who have performed. this is a very difficult challenge and have done well. i have to make some statements before we finish. i commend this committee for the good work on the bill and let me take a minute or two to talk about what i would like to say. i have filed four commonsense amendments that fall under the jurisdiction of the finance committee. i sent letters at the to the authors raising these issues. my amendments would make changes to make this bill workable and i would like to describe them. amendment 21 is designed to

ensure compliance with federal welfare laws by ensuring the federal dollars cannot be used for purposes that were not contemplated under the 1996 federal reform law. this addresses funds being used for benefits by individuals currently prohibited from receiving them including noncitizens. hatch 22. this amendment would clife the underlying bill to ensure immigrant africans satisfy their obligations. and requires that they have showed at the they have paid back their back taxes so the american taxpayers are made hole. hatch 23, this amendment would apply a five-year waiting period for cost subsidies under the health law for individuals going through the r.p.i. this alliance the five-year waiting period that applies for egal immigrants to other

federal-means-tested programs. hatch 24, this amendment would ensure that those not authorized to work in this country cannot claim unauthorized earnings to gain coverage. this would protect the teg right of the social security system. they are thoughtful approaches to fixing some of the fundamental flaws in in this bill. i filed these amendments in good faith hoping to reach an agreement. unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that and counting on the commitment made by me to address all of these amendments on the floor. i know i have the strong support from senator rubio, who has been working with me to get these issues resolved. the authors of the legislation show a willingness to work with us to address our concerns. that being the case, as i have said previously, i will vote to

report this bill out of the committee and proudly do so. let me make this point as clearly as i can. if these four issues are not addressed in a reasonable manner on the floor, i'm going to vote against this bill. i want everyone to know that. i can say with great confidence if these outstanding issues continue to be ignored and the commitments are not kept, i will not be the only one voting no. and all i can say is this, i respect everybody on this committee. it's a tough committee. we differ on a lot of things, but everybody on this committee is an intelligent and thoughtful person and i'm proud to serve in the united states senate with people like you on this very difficult committee. all i can say is these are important things to me. i think you have come a long way. i want to see us go the rest of the way and help us get people in the house to support this bill as well. thank you for that time. >> senator klobuchar. >> might i respond to senator

hatch for a minute? >> certainly. >> senator hatch mentioned four finance amendments that he has and we have talked a little about them. obviously, we don't agree with all of those amendments, but he has my commitment and the commitment from all of us to work something out on the floor of the senate in an effort to pass this bill and pass this bill by as large a margin as possible. and just as we worked on the amendments together, i give him my commitment. i'll give it my college try best and try to work those out. each side will have to give as they will on many more amendments. but this has been an excellent process. so far, we hope to continue that process on the floor and we hope that senator hatch will remain a vital part of that process. >> senator klobuchar.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to comment on the discussion we have on the amendment and i was listening to my colleagues here and i want to thank them for their views. people have different views on marriage equality and an amendment was put on our ballot. there was actually put on devries i have reasons to see if people would want to limit their definition of marriage. and the polling showed they would want to limit the definition of marriage and people put it on the ballot. what happened over two years was thing. dible joyful most of the ads were civil. and what happened in the end was that that amendment was defeated and then the matter came to the legislature and this past year,

a heart felt debate and senator franken mentioned, our legislation enacted marriage equality and the governor signed it into law and there were a number of republicans that ended up voting for that bill so it was a bipartisan bill in the end in both the house, state house and the state senate and that is because we had that discussion in our state. and there were deeply held religious views on both sides of this issue. and that is why i wish we could move forward with this and i understand the reasoning and people who are watching today and listening to this debate to understand that this debate isn't over. it's taking place. the legal issue that senator feinstein mentioned, the strong chance that in fact the defense against marriage act will be repealed in the supreme court which will resolve this issue that we are discussing in this bill with many more issues to go. so i appreciate all the work and

heartfelt views. i know my coletion have talked about this and how difficult this is. i am proud of this committee. this is the longest markup that i have been involved in. but i haven't been here as long. but it has been incredibly positive. issues debated that are very, very difficult. i was involved in the first immigration effort. senator graham was involved back in 2007 and senator whitehouse was in this group as well. and president bush tried to get that bill done and people slumped in their chairs in the room after we tried so many times to get the bill done and we stand proud of people who support this bill. we stand proud because this is a bill that has had so many views aired and focused on security, which we had aren't done as much in the past bill and focused on

some of the security issues. i'm proud of this bill from the economic perspective and everything that it does that we discussed in making sure we get back on track in a nation that welcomes permit to our doors and brings in inventors and brings in people that win nobel prizes even though he they were born in other countries. that shouldn't be forgotten. so thank you for this very civil markup. it's a tribute to everyone on this committee. as we are living at a time where people are going opposite ends of the boxing rings and like to yell at each other on tv, this committee has handled this bill and bodes well as we head to the floor. >> we will hear from senator flake and then other senators.

>> immigration implicates some of the most fem values and i'm disappointed with some of the developments certainly. others have spoken to this and families s cast and will be shut out. many members of the gang of eight who have withheld and not offered amendments they wanted to pursue on may 7. i was proud of my home state of delaware as our state senate and our governor became the 11th in the nation to legalize same-sex marriages. i think we are on the right side of history but that is an intensely divided issue. whether it is through court decision through an amendment on the floor through other legislation, i am determined to see us end legal discrimination against families headed by

same-sex couples and it is my hope we will not be deterred in any way by the opposition to that view. let me just conclude, mr. chairman, by saying i'm grateful for how hard you have worked. i understand that compromise is often at the essence of getting anything constructive big and broad done in legislation. i would like to see us move forward and recognizing marriage equality but i recognize this evening may not be the moment for it and i look forward to working tirelessly to advance that particular interest as we move to consideration of this bill and others in the future. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, i want to join the others in thanking you for holding what i think has been a good markup. my only regret is more of my amendments did not pass. [laughter]

>> but beyond that -- >> i had to withdraw a couple of mine. join the company. >> none of us are guaranteed that our amendments will pass in committee, but i would just note as important as this markup is, it is a lengthy process as we all know. obviously this goes to the floor of the senate and the senate will work its will and then the house will work its will and those will have to be reconciled in a conference committee before this bill or something like it passes the finish line. i have been involved in this debate for the entire time i have been here in the senate newsing comprehensive legislation. i think i have made clear that the only way that i believe that i can support a piece of legislation is if it dealt with three topics. one is border security, which i

respectfully say this bill does not, which deals with the 40% of illegal immigration, which is caused by visa overstays. people who enter the country legally, but don't leave and that is one reason why i'm so committed to biometric entry-exit system and looking forward to try and improve the bill on the floor and then to make sure that workers only legally qualified workers are authorized to work at the work police and we have an effective work site enforcement. if we deal credibly with those three issues, the american people aren't mad at people who come here just to work and achieve a better life. i believe that the american people are fundamentally compassionate and humane and if we deal with these other issues,

i believe that they will deal with that issue and allow us to deal with that issue in a responsible and dignified sort of way. i regret i'm going to vote no on the bill coming out of the committee because i think it fails to meet the criteria that i just laid out. i will vote yes on the motion to proceed on the floor and encourage my colleagues to do the same because i believe it's important to get on the bill on the floor and we work together to try and improve it and make it as good as it possibly be. i don't know if it will meet my standards on the floor. i'm sort of like senator hatch. i can't vote for something that is not credible or won't work. i refuse to do that. but i will work together with colleagues to try to improve the bill on the floor. even though i disagree in many instances with the work of the

gang of eight, i congratulate for moving this process forward. i think in the traditions of the senate that we operate this way. so while i will vote no on the passage of the bill from the senate judiciary committee, i will vote to proceed and look forward to working with colleagues to further improve the bill along the lines i have mentioned. > thank you.

the other thank four members and in the course of these deliberations, i have been in touch with one or more of them and feel they have been part of this conversation, even if not members of this committee. i have often been asked in the last two years i have been a member of the united states senate is it different than what you thought it would be. i suspect many of us have been asked that question and i pride to be diplomatic in my response but i can say these deliberations have been what i thought the united states senate would be, thoughtful, careful, courageous. and i want to commend particularly the members of our group of eight for their courage and their strength in keeping

together and keeping on track this bill. finally, mr. chairman, i thank u for your commitment to the uniting american families act, which i co-sponsored. connecticut is 12 states with a marriage equality law, unfortunately current law discriminates against connecticut residents and excludes them from the benefits of citizenship that are afforded to their neighbors. uncon shonbly and unconstitutionally. a foreign born spouse is one of the rights that is withheld from lg bmp t americans but the impact is truly devastating. i have seen it in friends and neighbors and people in connecticut. families are torn apart and americans are forced to choose living in the country they love and being with the person they

love. the greatest nation in the history of the world should not force people to make that choice. today, we have been confronted with a choice and i want to say to the chairman, i know how difficult and painful it was for you to withdraw this amendment just as it was for me to withdraw the amendments on gun violence prevention and other forebear that i will from offering. but there will be other opportunities and evently this measure, united american families act will prevail whether it's in the united states supreme court or in this body where it should be made the law of the land and again i thank you, mr. chairman. > thank you for all your help. >> i do support your marriage amendment and i hope we can move

forward to repeal dmp oma. i thank the stallworth and long suffering -- tremendous work. as a new senator and new member to this committee, it has been a privilege to work on a bill that will emerge as wup of the most significant pieces of legislation to be dealt with in my memory. so as we say in hawaii -- and to all of you. >> thank you very much. that is a first in this committee, at least in the 30-some-odd years i have been on this committee. thank you very much. senator grassley. >> i would ask for the brief opportunity to close. >> if you wish to step in, go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say at the

outset. i would like to thank the chairman for his willingness to consider the amendments of all the members of this committee and for allowing vigorous debate on those amendments. this has been a long and painstaking markup and i appreciate the chairman's willingness to hold it open and allow us to present amendments and arguments. at the outset of this hearing, i expressed my hope and desire that this markup would prove a productive endeavor to improve this bill and i noted at the time that the majority had the votes, that if each of the democrats in the majority along with the members of the gang of eight voted as a block that the majority had the ability to reject substantive amendments improving this bill. and i will note with regret that

i believe that's what has happened. nd i find that genuinely disappointing. i want commonsense immigration reform to pass. i think our imgation system is broken. i think there are large bipartisan majorities in this country that want commonsense immigration reform to pass. and this bill has two major problems. number one, it doesn't fix the problem. it doesn't stop illegal immigration but makes it worse by not securing the border and insenttivizing future illegal immigration and tragedies would flow as a direct result if this bill were to become law, number two in this its current form this bill is not likely to become law. it may have the votes to pass the senate, but i don't believe this bill will pass the house of representatives or become law and i would view that as a terrible outcome if congress did

not actually fix the problem. i would note the last time the senate considered immigration reform that was the outcome and indeed president obama played a role in helping kill immigration reform in 2007. and i believe it is the unwillingness to accept significant improvements that would solve the problem that are setting this bill up for defeat as well. in the course of this markup, i have introduced five amendments that were designed to improve the bill and in particular to put it in a situation where it would actually fix the problem. first of all, i introduced an amendment to actually secure the border. one of the greatest failings of this bill is in my opinion, it is almost utterly toothless with respect to the border. it has unmeasureable subjective metrics that are entrusted to janet napolitano rather than

putting assets on the ground. the amendment i introduced would have increased fourfold the helicopters and fix-win i assets and would have insisted on fixing the problem which large bipartisan majorities of americans want. unfortunately every democrat on this committee voted against putting real teeth in border security. i introduced two amendments to improve illegal immigration. 65,000 to 325,000 because they are pro growth and strengthen our economy and increase jobs. unfortunately, every democrat on this committee voted against increasing high-skilled immigration and voted to stay with the lower limits in this bill that i think are not sufficient to strengthen our economy. the second amendment would have doubled legal immigration and increased family-based immigration, simplified the

system and again, every democrat on this committee vote d against illegal immigration because i was told by my colleagues on the other side that a deal had been reached in closed-door negotiations with union leaders and more was not acceptable or part of that deal. i think that's an unfortunate admission of how this bill was arrived. and i think it is unfortunate we saw the votes we did. and finally, i think to work and fix the problem and to be able to pass this bill should respect the rule of law by not creating a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. in my opinion the path to citizenship is unfair to those who followed the rules, who have waited years or decades to come here legally and undermines the rule of law and i believe it makes it quite likely this bill

would be defeated. in response, the colleagues on the other side, i was informed without the path to citizenship, there could be no reform at all, that we would not improve border security or high-skilled immigration, we would not address anything to take the 11 million who are living or in the shadows out of the shadows unless there was a path to citizenship. that is exactly the absoluteist position that doomed immigration reform in 2007 and i hope when this bill goes to the floor of the senate that those who want immigration reform to pass and i want commonsense immigration reform to pass, we'll look to bipartisan areas of cooperation to improve this bill and to fix the problem. thank you. >> i will now yield to senator grassley. i want to thank senator grassley who was helpful in getting a large number of republican amendments passed in this bill

and i appreciate that and as i appreciate the number of publicans who asked me to be joining them on their amendments. > first, closing remarks for senator sessions. >> any statements anyone wishes to place in the record. >> mr. chairman, tonight we bring to a close an open and transparent process on legislation to reform our broken immigration system. you surely kept a promise and i hope that promise will be maintained by leaders above and beyond chairman and ranking members when it gets to the floor of the united states senate. i appreciate the way that the process has gone and willingness of members to debate many amendments and discuss the provisions in the bill. it was a productive conversation

focused on getting immigration reform right in the long-term. coming into the debate, i think i made my position very clear. i voted for amnesty for three million people in 1986 and it didn't solve the problem. and today, we are right back at the same place talking about the same problems and proposing same solutions. and i accept the sincerity of the group of eight when they said in the preamble of their working paper that they were proceeding in a basis that they would fix this problem once and for all and in their words, it wouldn't have to be revisited. i hope we reach that point, but at this point, we have not. the sponsors of the bill wants to believe it's different than in 1986. they say it will be tough and expensive road and would be

easier to just go home and go through this process. they say the bill will make us safer and the legalization program will be different this time around. the bill includes very little, if any to improve the executive branch's ability to enforce the law. no one dispute that this bill is legalization first and enforcement later and that's unacceptable. and i think if you read the polls, because we like to cite polls an awful lot. immigration reform is very much desired by the american people and it ought to be because the system's broken. but that's pretty much based upon securing the borders. without ensuring adequate border security or holding employers accountable, the cycle will repeat itself. i use the committee process the last five or six days we have

been in session to attempt to strengthen border security. my amendment to fix the trigger was defeated. we used the committee process to try and track who was coming and going from our country. amendments to require biometrics at all ports of entry, that is current law, that was devoted. try to hold employers accountable. my amendment to speed up the employer verification system was defeated. at the end of the day and with the power of the majority, argued against securing the border for another decade. the triggers in the bill that kick off legalization are inefficient, uneffective and unrealistic and all while amendments to make the bill bigger and costlier were acceptable. this bill falls short of what i want to see in a strong

immigration reform bill. and we need to be fair to the millions of people who came here the right way because at my town meetings in iowa and i think you folks know that i have this practice of 32 years now to go to all 99 of our counties, but one of the resentments about immigration reform or the process of allowing 11 million to be here is people who have come here ellie and becoming citizens, they resent people jumping the fence, jumping the gate ahead of everybody else. so we have to take into consideration those views as well. i remain optimistic that on the floor we can vote on commonsense amendments to better the bill. serious consideration should be to strengthen to remove criminal gang members and hold

perpetrators of fraud and abuse accountable and prevent the weakening of federal law and how it works to the detriment and find consensus that require employers to recruit from home-grown talent and close loopholes and prevent criminals from imagining immigration benefits and ensuring that we are improving our ability to protect the homeland. i respect the process that we have here in this committee. it was a useful conversation and brought issues to the forefront. we have and open process which isn't new -- we had an open process. as done in the past, this committee works dill geptly through an extensive and transparent process when working on immigration reform. i'm glad we continued that tradition. now the real work begins to see if we can reform this bill

before we send it to the house. we need a bill that truly balances national security with our economic security. the bill sponsors group of eight have said they want a product that will garner around 70 votes to send a message to the house that they should rubber stamp the bill and send it to the president. my message to the senate and house that absent significant changes, the house should take up their own process, develop their own product with input from their constituents and work towards a conference on this bill. that will ensure that the bill benefits from the various checks and balances we have within the legislative process to reach the proper outcome. i thank the chairman for working constructively. but as one who was here the last time we voted on legalization without border security, i cannot support this bill. we need a commonsense approach that goes step by step making

sure every line, provision and detail makes america stronger, border more secure and immigration system more efficient and effective and that's what america deserves and what we have the responsibility to do. now having said that about the substance of the legislation, i want to make it very clear that when i and other people say that this immigration system is broken, it would be dishonest, even though i said i was voting against this bill on the substance, if my vote made a difference whether this bill was going to go to the floor or not go to the floor, i would vote for it to go to the floor. i think in the same vein as senator cornyn said, we have to move this bill along and i hope that nobody has their mind made up exactly what this bill is going to look like when it comes out of conference, because i think in the final analysis, i won't know whether i'm for this bill or not until it gets to

that final product, but i think i have the responsibility to move it along because if this system is broke, we ought to make every opportunity we can to see in the best vein we can to see that it's fixed and fixed rapidly. >> i will put my whole statement in the record. i don't think we need longer speeches other than just to make a couple of comments. first i appreciate what all senators have said, both republicans and democrats about the openness and fairness of this process. i have worked very hard for that as chairman. i don't think there has ever been a markup of such a complex bill in my memory in the senate that has been this open. every single amendment has been filed online and streamed online. we have had multiple hearings. we have had five days in which we considered hundreds of amendments.

we have adopted 48 republican amendments during this time. and we have endeavored to moved expeditiously. i want to thank every single senator for cooperating and trying to be open and honest. i hope senators won't mind if i single out four of our senators for a special praise. senator schumer and durbin and graham and flake who worked many, many hours beyond what everybody has seen here with their four colleagues in trying to put this together and i appreciate the times you have met privately with me in the office as we tried to work out the best and fairest way. as several of you have mentioned, trying to make sure everybody is heard. the rights of all senators have

been protected. now this is not the bill i would have drafted. i voted for amendments that had been rejected. i voted against amendments that had been accepted. and i have been on the winning side on others. my greatest disappointment is that this legislation should recognize the rights of all americans. americans have just as right to immigration benefits and i will continue to work with others to end this needless discrimination. but all of us agree our immigration system is not working and that is why i will vote for this bill because all the work that has gone into by both republicans and democrats to get something to the united states senate. disfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. long time past for reform. and i hope that our history, our

values and our decency as a people, as a people can inspire us to take action. we are americans. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. help us write the next great chapter in american history. we can do it. we have demonstrated to the united states senate that we can all work together republicans and democrats. now let's go out of this room and work together with the other members of the senate and with the other body, but more importantly work all with all americans and all those who wish to be americans, as my grandparents did, as my wife's parents did and so many of our ancestors did and we will be a better senate, a better congress, but most importantly,

a better country for it. and so i call the roll on final legislation as amended. and we have gotten permission to make technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended s. 744. clerk will call the roll. roll call]

>> the votes are 13 yeas and five nays. >> it passes. [applause] [chanting] >> yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! [chanting] cheers and applause]

>> come on up everybody. >> leahy! leahy! leahy!

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by ational captioning institute]