then, a look at preparing families with active duty military members. randy plunkett. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. last week, the senate judiciary meaty voted 13-5 to approve a border security bill. next, we will show you the fifth and final day of debate, where the committee chairman offered and withdrew an amendment to allow gay americans to sponsor their foreign border partners. this is one hour and 15 minutes. would like to turn to an issue very important to me and too many americans who are suffering from discrimination based on who they love. there isments to show more than one way to take discrimination out of our broken system. it is called amendment number seven, before the committee. the experience of americans torn apart by a current immigration system is heartbreaking. i have been married for more than 50 years. i cannot fathom how i would feel if my government refused to , or made a law discriminating me based on who i love. not all states, but in just the sought -- just the time since immigration legislation has been pending, from on provided marriage equality. the three states are all represented on this committee, delaware, rhode island, and minnesota. i know the members here share my joy being treated fairly under state law. regardless of the state-led law continuesal to discriminate against these lawful marriages. thousands of lawfully married areles in 12 states discriminated against every day and i am committed to ending that discrimination. will not change a single state law. the issue of marriage has long been a state law issue until the president of marriage act was passed in the late 1990's. many of us on the committee want to see the law of return. now, it discriminates against lawful marriages and makes thousands of american families less secure. in the immigration context, if you are american and you follow my with someone of the same sex from a different country and you get married legally, your spouse will not be treated like .ny other he -- other immigrant my amendment will change that. i want to be the senator who asked america to choose between the level of their life and a love of their country. discriminating against a segment of americans for who they love is a striving -- a travesty that is ripping many american families apart. i know this issue is important to many who serve on this committee. i would like to hear from other members, especially from those who drafted the bill, who decided not to remove the information. senator graham, do you wish to speak? anybody else who wishes to. >> thank you. werenk a lot of folks wondering what you would do about this issue and how you would handle it, and i want to be the first to say your passion for marriage equality, and, in your view, ending discrimination is consistent and respected. what we are trying to do here is hold together a strong but fragile coalition. people of vermont have a different view of marriage and the definition that maybe people in south, -- south carolina and folks on my side of the aisle. the country is going through a debate. they by day, how to define marriage, who should do it. should it be the people of the state? the referendum. we put together the most effective coalition i have seen since 2000 five. evangelical christians and the catholic church have weighed in in a fashion that is made it possible for a guy like me to survive the emotional nature of the debate. and in certain parts of the democratic party. i have been asked a lot about what would this mean. if we try to redefine marriage within the immigration debate, it would mean the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart. -- there are a lot of folks supporting the bill who will not agree to redefine marriage for immigration law purposes. there are a lot of people in south carolina who support the bill who would find that a bridge too far, and the courts doma.aling with toma -- there will be plenty of opportunity for congress to deal with their role in defining marriage and what areas of the law it should be redefined, if any. i would urge my colleagues to understand, traditional a well accepted concept in south carolina and many other places in the country. states are defining marriage differently, as they have the right to do. when it comes to passing the immigration bill, to interject redefinition of marriage would be a bridge too far. , i think, tolose creating a product that would solve a very difficult problem, a long time in the making, and i would urge my colleagues to understand this would fracture the coalition. ifould not support the bill we redefined marriage in the immigration bill away from what people in my state considered to be the proper definition. i have asked a lot of people in south carolina to be open- minded about changing our immigration laws because they do not work. i have an obligation to listen to those people who feel very comfortable with the definition of marriage in a traditional fashion. debate this, there will be no stronger voice for changing the way america terms of same-sex partners and and traditional marriage than yourself. of will have plenty opportunity to expect yourself and stand up for the people of vermont. as to immigration, this is the best chance i have seen since i have been dealing with the issue. there is only -- only so much market to be born in emotional issues like immigration. traditional marriage without animosity. i am not married. maybe i should not speak at all about it. but i do believe the people of my state and the people of other states who have gone a different way than vermont, that this would throw the coalition out of balance. to the evangelical community and the catholic church, your support has been outcome- determinative for a guy like me, and i do not want to put you in a position at this late stage. i do not support your amendment, but it would break the coalition, in my view. >> with the senator yield for a question? >> yes. >> 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 is there anything in this amendment that would require his to haveder state law same-sex marriage? >> no, sir. i see in your amendment a requirement by me and others who disagree with the definition of marriage that you so passionately believe in, and you would be making me vote on a youept that i think--- have got me on immigration but not on merit. if you want to keep me on immigration, let's than immigration. thank you. >> senator from california. >> as you know, i am the author of the repeal of the defense against marriage act. we have 32 cosponsors. 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. one of the cases is an equal attention case. held up,is being pending supreme court decision. the supreme court may settle all of this. if it does, it can make this t because the same immigration law that applies for heterosexual partners would apply for same-sex partners. ist this amendment does essentially codify the current treatment of all marriages, which are already recognized in immigration law based on place of marriage. ensure that same-sex couples are afforded the same right as heterosexual couples when it comes to immigration. nothing more and nothing less. here is what it would mean. a citizen or lawful permanent resident -- resident could sponsor a same-sex spouse just as married couples do today. the fiancée 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. this sounds like the fairest approach. here is the problem. like the senators amendment, we now know this is going to blow the agreement apart. , and i have comes been on the front of the debate, publicly, privately, everywhere else, and i do not want to blow the bill apart. i do not want to loose senator graham's vote. senator graham's vote will represent and be used as the rationale for dozens of other votes, who will then not vote for the immigration bill on the floor. we have a very good chance of the supreme court finding in favor of a violation of the equal protection law, because the case has to do with a deck -- death tax benefit denied in a same-sex couple who had been married for a substantial time. there is a good justification to say, that is an equal protection problem under the constitution. to move,we are ready in any event, to bring the bill to the committee and have a full discussion. what senator leahy is proposing. i would just, 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 way that would not blow apart the bill. i listen and hear people who support what i am doing in here people who disagree. , many ofnators know us have a choice in congress to change our committee assignments. i stayed on for a number of reasons. i believe strongly in the rule of law. i applied court bills because i ofieve the three branches government and checks and balances are extraordinarily important to a democracy. i also believe, and i was brought up in a family that believed, in equal treatment of all people. i understand what you're saying. about immigration laws. i wonder if our grandchildren will look back on this day in the same way we look back at the nation laws of 40 years ago. and they ask, how could the supreme court even have had to decide the matter of loving persons? why were those laws even on the books and respected and upheld? where is the congress that should have spoken up? but, i would certainly hear from the senator to speak. and the senator from arizona. then, we will decide where to go from here. i have respected every single senator on the committee. i have held this to the end so we could get to all the other amendments. emphasize enough to the senators how strongly i feel about this. >> i just want to say from the outset what a pleasure it has been to be so new in this senate and involved in a process like this. for years, we have been hearing about this function in the congress and we have all suffered our public opinion polling and what people think of this lace. the process we have gone through in the last couple of days and weeks are a real antidote. think about how you have opened up this process, you have not cut anybody off and have allowed everybody to offer an amendment. i think people respect that. i certainly do. with regard to this issue, this immigration bill is a heavy lift, as we all know, going through the process. if we only make the left have the broadest coalition possible, and we have endeavored to keep the coalition together. many people on this committee on both sides of the aisle, we joked a minute ago about taking more tough votes between myself and senator graham. other sides on the of the aisle have taken tough votes, as well. and have refrained from introducing amendments the bill would likely pass, but might upset the fragile coalition we have. i know that i appreciate it and many of us do. this is an issue being addressed by the court right now. it was certainly upset the coalition we have, certainly, we in arizona have spoken on this issue. mean the billinly would not move forward. that would be a real shame, given how far we have gone and -- how far we have, and the work put into this via you, mr. chairman. i thank you for the process and i would hope the amendment can be withdrawn and we can move the process forward. thank you. >> other senators that wish to speak? the senator from illinois echo >> thank you. bill,onsor of your uniting american families act. -- to makeponsor of i hopeief, my position is very clear on this. what we witnessed in this room is, in ordering of priorities, it has involved a lot of personal decisions. senator, raised an issue very important in her state and community. a heartfelt issue. 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 in december, he went through the amendments. i can tell you, i know, firsthand, how difficult it was for him to make that decision. now, many of us will face the same decision with an amendment that is pending. i believe in my heart of hearts that what you are doing is the right and just thing. i room -- i admire you very much. i believe this is the wrong moment, the wrong bill. approximately 250,000 lgbt undocumented immigrants in america that would benefit from the passage of immigration reform. wantt to make sure -- i to make certain they have that chance. 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. , we canpe that today keep the coalition together and pass immigration reform. >> my friend from illinois speaks of the dreamers. nobody has been a stronger advocate for them in either the house or the senate, in either party, or in the administration the senator of illinois. i admired -- i admire him for that. also, when i talk to legally married couples in my state, who are legally married under our laws, laws passed not by a court, but a -- but by our legislature, and they say, we cannot dream, because we are the same-sex. i ask myself, how would i feel if my wife, to whom i had been married for 15 years, if we had been separated. the senator what says and i appreciate what he said about me and this process. i have tried to keep it fair and open. we are soon coming to the end of this. >> thank you. i want to add my voice in thanking you for an open and fair process that has helped our bill. to have the ability to go forward, let everyone offer their amendments, and learn with the arguments are. i do not think we will make the mistake we made six or seven years ago because we have had a crucible, fairly and in deathly run by you. i know your passion on the issue and i do not doubt it for a moment. it is consistent with your record and your beliefs. i know how much you care about it. i want to say this is one of the most excruciatingly ethical decisions i have had to make in my 30 years in office. i believe the amendment should be included in the final bill. i know our constitution. i know our core principles. they call for equality and equal protection under the law. i believe not to do this is discrimination. this amendment is different than helping the irish or anything else. it is ranked discrimination. i agree with that. i believe in it strongly. i was one of the very first in the chamber to come out for full marriage equality for same-sex partners. i was proud of my state of new i helped make happen by lobbying state legislators. it is a basic sensible of fairness that you should not treat one class of people any different than another. 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 have met with these folks and i have felt their pain, i have felt their agony. should same-sex partners have the same rights as heterosexual partners? should lesbian and gay individuals have the same opportunity as different sex couples to sponsor their partners for citizenship? absolutely. i believe strongly that they should. for too many of our fellow americans, the current law is inadequate, unfair, discriminatory, and un-american. it needs to change. that is why i am the lead sponsor of uniting american families act from a number of years. that is why my office works so hard on cave -- on cases of fairness, of current law, and have kept loving couples partially separated. i believe the american people support this and support equal treatment under the law for all people. i have urged inclusion of its principles in the immigration bill, publicly, privately, individually, with my colleagues, both democrat and republican. there are many others in congress who disagree. some of those strongly opposed to its inclusion in this comprehensive immigration bill are my partners in the endeavor. they do not believe they are just against it. they believe it will rip apart the bill and we will have no bill. our partnership is one of mutual .espect i have spoken to them and i know how deeply they feel the issue and i do not get on a higher moral course and take my position is always better than theirs, as much as i disagree with theirs, as much as i vehemently take issue with their reasoning and conclusions. all i can do is try to persuade, bargain, and control. i cannot compel them to believe and act otherwise. they have made it hurriedly clear, in plain words and on multiple occasions, that if this provision is added to the bill, they will have no choice, as and a onceham said, in a generation effort to pass comp has of immigration reform would be finished. i wish it were otherwise. i firmly believe it will be otherwise and soon. our society and political institution are rapidly changing for the better on the question of fully equality for our gay and lesbian neighbors and friends and coworkers and relatives, for our fellow americans. sadly, that is not the case today. , this committee, with this decision, must be made. inthe political reality which we operate, the senate, and the u.s. congress, those who hold differently on the question, have more than enough power to prevent passage, either as a stand-alone bill, or as part of the immigration bill. to add it the effort to this bill, they will walk away. they have said it publicly and have told me privately. i believe them. , noah quality, no immigration bill. everyone loses. what can be accomplished via this comprehensive bill for 11 million people in the shadows, the security and prosperity of our nation is too vital, too rare, to let fail now. i much as it pains me, cannot support the amendment if it will bring down the bill. i am a politician. means i have chosen my life's work within the constraints of the system to accomplish as much -- as much good as i can. i accept the tough choices and the painful but necessary imperfection of compromise, at the heart of our system of government. i know this will be of little comfort to our friends in the lgbt community, but i do not believe this would be the only opportunity to accomplish this goal we share that is covered by the amendment. they will express their disappointment, their anger, at the decision today. i understand that. i want to let them know i will be here and ready to work with you, the lgbt community, at each turn after this one to advance the cause of legal equality. this is far from our last battle together. thank you. >> mr. chairman. i believe ins, equality. i believe in equal protection under the law. luxury of getting into the business a little later it in life than some people. fors never publicly ever anything other than equality and marriage. i think senator durbin and senator schumer have said it. i do not want to drag this out. we are so proud in minnesota that we became the 12 state. this will get resolved, hopefully sooner than later. i wish my colleagues on the other side felt differently. george, maybe about 10 years ago, about that long ago, said ,hat kids his daughter's age his daughter friends, when they find out a friend is gay, it is about as interesting to them as learning their left-handed. out someonei find is gay, it is more interesting. this is my 62nd birthday. i am 62. it is wrong. it is wrong to discriminate against people. but i do not want who would be hurt by this ill not passing. this whole bill not passing. >> 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. i heard a senator, not on this 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. i know many americans -- they 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 this legislation would -- the whole immigration legislation would be killed if if i added this anti-discrimination amendment. so i will with mold -- withhold 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 minute, human beings are human beings. my senior senator from vermont 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. the catholic church and 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 applicants satisfy their lawful taxable obligations. and requires that they have showed at the they have paid back their back taxes so the american taxpayers are made whole. 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 legal 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 integrity 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 an incredible joyful thing. 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. >> is that ok? well everybody is here, i ask that we be given permission to make changes as amended. no objection to that? senator? .> i want to give my thanks things. many it is about ensuring economic prosperity. immigration implicates some of the most fem values and i'm disappointed with some of the developments certainly. others have spoken to this and tough votes cast and families 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. >> i want to thank the other 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 you 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. unconsciousably and unconstitutionally. a foreign born spouse is one of the rights that is withheld from lgbt 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 amendments that i will forebear 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 doma. 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. and 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 voted 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 republicans 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. we 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 illegally 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 is 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. dysfunction 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 passage of the 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. passes.[applause] [chanting] >> yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! [chanting] >> si, send applause] puede! >> come on up everybody. >> leahy! leahy! leahy! leahy! leahy! [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next washington journal, memorial day issues. professor talks about issues facing the u.s. armed forces. ofook at preparing families the national military family association. military.com discusses jobs. we'll take your calls, tweets and e-mails. " on the "washington journal c-span. >> earlier today, president obama toward a neighborhood in oklahoma that was damaged during the tornado. he spoke to the residence and first responders. he was joined by officials including the state governor and the fema administrator. [inaudible] >> we will keep going this way. >> ok. >> it looks like -- >> how long was it on the ground? >> it was 17 miles. >> this one -- >> the debris. [inaudible] >> get behind the truck. [inaudible] >> the president visited the fire department and met with first responders to thank them. you guys did a really good job. >> stand there. >> thank you, sir. >> very nice to see you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. you guys did a great job. i appreciate it. thank you. , localional guard officials -- we appreciate the great work. it was a great collaboration between the first responders. >> a good leadership. we will take a picture. how was that? thank you, guys. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible] [inaudible] come on, everybody. thank you so much. great job. >> tom goldstein can you remember when you named scotus blog and why? >> i think it was the very first day when we imagined hey what if

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Vermont , State House , Illinois , Delaware , Minnesota , Rhode Island , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , Washington , Connecticut , Arizona , Oklahoma , South Carolina , Iowa , Ireland , Hawaii , Americans , America , Irish , American , Tom Goldstein , Randy Plunkett , Bruce Fleming , Steve Vogel , Janet Napolitano ,