Incoming chairman january, ive been trying to find a solution to the problem that we all acknowledge which is a border out of control, laws being abused, humanitarian crisis, a National Security crisis in the making, and in march, the Committee Held a hearing to learn the scope of the problem. , the numbere of families have doubled, the problem is beginning to be unmanageable, we are all concerned about the humanitarian conditions which is why we supported a 4 billion appropriation to provide better housing, but we have done nothing to stop the flow until today. A bill i introduced after the scope of the hearing that was based on the best advice i could get from those in charge, and the dhs director who testified in june said the bill we had before this committee would stop 70 to 90 of the flow. My colleagues on the other site said what about Central America. You are right, we need to invest in Central America, but there is not enough money to invest until we change the magnet. The problem is obvious, you come to america, you asked for the asylum, the hearing is two or three years away, people do not show up. You bring a small child, we can only hold them for 20 days, dirty percent of the families are fraudulent families. The cartels, smugglers, and human traffickers are str exploiting th are exploiting this making billions of dollars a month. If we do not do something to change our laws, it will never stop. This bill will change our laws and it will allow us to have asylum claims to be made in a refugee eight center. We are no longer going to take the asylum claims of the border because we just do not have the cabability. We have a 900,000 person backlog and when it comes to minor children, we are going to have more than 20 days, but it is just intractable impractical. We need to cut this flow off. We need to invest in Central America if we can, but somebody has to do something. I have delayed the markup. We will be doing a better job of fixing the problem. Im not blaming anybody. This has been hard. It has been hard since 2006. Know thats a big change in our law. The problem is big and we need to have big solutions. I know you worry about the floras decision. All i can say is that 20 days is not working. It is impractical. Borderlearned at the visit where that 200,000 people released because they did not have the capability of holding the families, so they release them. I dont want to separate families. Release families unless they win their day. Right now, we are in the worst of all worlds. Separatent want to the family, youve to let them all go because you dont have the capability to hold them. This is a method a disaster. It needs to change. I dont want the committee to become irrelevant i dont want this to go directly to the floor. I have tried the best i know how to find a breakthrough. Me i am not going to stop the process. It is now time for us to move forward and get this bill out of committee. I will talk to anyone who will fix the problem in a broader fashion. I have tried. Blame me. We are not going to stop. We are going to keep trying. It fixes the problem in terms of flow. I have always enjoyed working with you and we will keep trying. I have a motion, i move that we vote on the graham amendment, as amended, if amended and the final passage of s. 1494, if amended, beginning at 11 00 today, the clerk will call the roll. The clerk will call the role. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Chairman, this is unprecedented. No it is not. Mr. Chairman, you are not going to respond to our request for a point of order clarification . No i am not. What rule are you pointing to that allows you to do this. No. No. Mr. Chairman, point of order. We will continue the roll call and i will be happy to take any questions you have. I decline to vote on the grounds that this is an illegitimate process. Go ahead. Excuse me, i am here. Please vote. [indiscernible] continue please. Motion is passed. Please, yes maam, please. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order pending before the committee. I will leave it up to senator feinstein. Do you want me to address the point of order . Im wondering if i can make my Opening Statement that address the point of order. Partisan immigration legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Repeatedly, statements have been made that republicans who want a solution, not a political issue. What is happening today, i can tell you it would not produce a solution. Today on this agenda, the secure and protect act does not enjoy broad support and what is worse, it will increase problems at the border. I am so disappointed that republicans have chosen to break Committee Rules and senate rules in order to force the bill through the committee. I am so disappointed that the secure and protect act was relisted on the committees agenda last week for the first time. If there had been a quorum to conduct business, this is important. It would have been subject to being held over. However, there were insufficient senators to conduct business. For five minutes, there were eight senators present, seven republicans and one democrat. And that was after we waited for over 30 minutes. The quorum requirement in the judiciary Committee Rules stated nine members of the committee, including at least two members of the minority, should constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. The text of this rule is clear. The committee cannot move forward, even for the purpose of holding over a matter until the next business meeting, unless at least nine members are present, with two of the nine representing the minority. This was not the case last week. There were not enough senators present to reach the committees quorum requirement and transact business. The executive summary from last weeks meeting clearly stated no action was taken. That is the official statement from last weeks meeting. As a result, today is the first time the committee may take any action on chairman grahams bill. The Committee Rules also state at the request of any member, or by action of the chairman, a bill, matter or nomination on the agenda of the committee may be held over until the next meeting of the committee or for one week, whichever occurs later. That is judiciary Committee Rules 1. 3. Democratic members requested we hold chairman grahams a bill over until the august recess as required as required by our rules. I urge the chairman to honor that request. It was not. Republicans today are pushing forward with consideration and votes on s. 1494. The committee will be breaking and violating its own rules. Why even have rules if they can be broken whenever it is expedient to do so, or whenever it suits the will of the majority or the chairman . Members on the others of the aisle often complain about senator reids decision to go nuclear and change the rules of the senate on judicial nominations. However, make no mistake, if republicans go forward with breaking the rules today, this will be a new precedent that will denigrate this committee and the institution of the senate. I strongly object to proceeding with Committee Business today. This will be the first time that our committee, and i have been on it for 26 years, will blatantly disregard quorum and holdover rules. It should also be noted by moving forward today, the majority will be breaking the rules of the senate. Senate rule26. 2 states each Committee Shall adopt rules, not inconsistent with the rules of the senate, governing the procedure of such committee. Any amendment to the rules of a Committee Shall not take effect until the amendment is published in the congressional record heard our Committee Rules do not have a mechanism for modifying or suspending the rules after they have been adopted and published at the beginning of the congress. Nor is there a provision for waiving either rule 1. 3, which grants each member the right to hold a matter over, or rule 3. 1, which establishes our core requirements. In my 26 years, i cannot remember a time when the chairman and Ranking Member did not come together to develop bipartisan rules for the committee that were adopted by unanimous consent. Chairman grassley and i did that last congress and chairman graham and i did that this congress. We are proceeding in this manner to force a vote on partisan immigration on a partisan immigration bill even though the chairman did not reach out to try to find a compromise or solution. In addition, as far as i know, there has been no attempt to publish this partisan change to judiciary rules in the congressional record. Mr. Chairman, we live in a democracy and our government is only as strong as those in it. Our rules are not enforced by police action. No one can be arrested on breaking the rules. They are based on respect. We are not the house. This is not a body intended to run on power alone. However, today, if republicans move forward in this manner, we will take one more step toward fundamentally altering the senate and turning this body into a second house of representatives. If the rules are disregarded, i strongly believe we diminish this institution and this committee. This is not the senate i joined in 1993, it is not the senate the framers envisioned in 1787. I also believe it is important to remember this committee and the senate has a tradition of considering significant immigration legislation in a bipartisan manner. In 2003, they came together and introduced a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill, while the house considered a democratic only bill. In 2007, senators kennedy, durbin, myself, kyle, hatch, graham and others worked long hours to negotiate a bipartisan bill. We worked handinhand with the Bush Administration as the secretaries personally engaged in numbers of meetings. Most recently in 2013, the gang of 8 led us in negotiations for another attempt in bipartisan legislation. This bill ultimately passed the senate by a strong 6832 vote. Before i say that, according to the secretary, if the 2013 bill had passed, his comment is we would be a lot more secure along the border. Yet today, the bill on the agenda does not enjoy bipartisan support. No democrats were consulted. It will not be voted on by a committee with any democratic support. Moreover, if leader mcconnell were to choose to bring it to the senate floor, i do not believe it could secure 60 votes to open debate. If Mitch Mcconnell decided to break even more senate rules to force the bill out of the senate, the bill would die in the house. My staff confirmed with nancy pelosi, chairman nadler, this bill will not move through the house immigration subcommittee or the house Judiciary Committee. Nor will it come to a vote on the house floor or secure enough votes to be discharged. Let me say that again no matter how many Committee Rules or senate rules are broken, this bill will not become law. I deeply respect you, mr. Chairman, but given that this is a deadend proposition, it begs the question why are we doing this . Finally, i want to discuss the problems the graham intended to address and the policies it includes. We have discussed repeatedly the crisis at the border. To be clear, the crisis is there are unprecedented numbers of children and families coming to the United States seeking Legal Immigration through asylum. This crisis is not about ilLegal Immigration. It is not about record numbers of total people trying to enter the United States. I have this on my desk with a little heart over it. This is a father and a young child. This is them trying to cross the river. I will pass it around because to look at the child sends a loud and clear signal. We have discovered repeatedly the crisis at the border. To be clear, the crisis is there is an unprecedented number of children and families coming to the United States seeking Legal Immigration through asylum claims. The crisis is not about ilLegal Immigration. It is about record numbers of total people trying to enter our country. It is what is present on the statue of liberty, that is the watchword in the moniker of our nation. We have a new problem. Children and families are facing violence and persecution in their home countries. They are coming to the United States for refuge in record numbers, that is true. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has exacerbated the problems by disrespecting the laws that ensure we treat vulnerable families and children with care and provide basic humanitarian conditions. In fact, in the last year, at least seven Migrant Children have died after being held in u. S. Custody. In addition in june of this year, the dhs Inspector General observed immediate risks and egregious violations of detention standards at facilities, including overly restrictive segregation, inadequate medical care, unreported security incidents and significant food and safety issues, including moldy bathrooms, unusable toilet and foulsmelling spoiled food. This is the dhs oig titled concerns about ice care at four detention facilities, june 3, 2019. The aclu filed another lawsuit because it discovered the administration has continued to separate children from their parents even though a federal judge ordered an end to the practice. The lawsuit alleges over 900 more children have been taken from their parents. With all this as a backdrop, how can we not the concerned . The bill does not fix these problems. It will only make them worse. For example, the bill would eliminate protections and limit how long children can be held in unlicensed the tension centers. Detention centers. The bill repeals the provisions that ensure government facilities maintain minimum standards, such as providing clean Drinking Water and safe and sanitary conditions. Moreover, the graham bill gives the department of Homeland Securitys Sole Authority to determine what the standards should be for Holding Children and makes this policy unreviewable by a court. I question whether a policy could withstand legal challenge. Even if those were to fail, the Inspector Generals report makes a clear case as to why this congress should not give dhs sole discretion to determine what constitutes sanitary and humane conditions for Holding Children. Second, the graham bill would repeal several important provisions that i authored to protect unaccompanied children, specifically under current law, unaccompanied children under 18 are required to be transferred from Homeland Security to a state licensed childcare service, managed by hhs within 72 hours. While in those shelters, hhs is tasked with identifying family members or sponsors who can care for the child while he or she goes through a nonadversarial asylum process. This law actually has worked well. Currently, over 95 of children are placed with their families or a sponsor within approximately 45 days. We should be proud of that. However, under the graham bill, dhs would be given the authority to conduct a new interview process, administered by an immigration officer from customs and border protection. Under the new process, the cbp officer would interview a child to determine if they qualify for asylum. The decision would be made under a new higher standard of review and would not be reviewable by ny court. Is the decision would be made higher standard of review and would not be reviewable by any court. And 13. Age 8, lines 12 in addition, the unaccompanied detained and nlikely to have access to counsel or an ability to gather to support their application. Finally, if its decided the eligible for asylum, they would be subject to deportation. These are significant changes, law. Rs, to current whats worse is the impact on no legal ho have representation and cannot be expected to understand complex law. Row review of the secretarys decision. Specifically, the bill states court shall have urisdiction to review a determination made by the secretary. Before. Ver heard that the bill would also change the the bility standards for special imgrant juvenile status visa to make it more difficult children to qualify for protection by requiring that the child demonstrate that both arents abuse them, not just one. This provision risks the return an abusive or neglectful parent in their country of origin. Existing law sought to prevent. And im winding up. I apologize. Longer than i thought. Finally, the grand bill would to restrict changes asylum law. From a ban anyone country that has a refugee or a country ter the practical effect would be to age prohibit individuals from most from l american countries asylum. G for limits asly lumbar applications by only allowing families who d enter the United States through the ports of entry to apply for asylum. What makes this policy change draconian is that currently the administration is men, and women, children who seek to legally pply for asylum from entering u. S. Ports so in effect this is further closing off legal for asylum. Pply if enacted, the grand bill would children and for families seeking asylum for our system of providing protection to the persecuted. Bad situation far worse. Of liberty could weep, she would. Mr. Chairman, e all agree something must be done but this is not it. Fore you for your bearance. The process. Out yes, sir. Absolutely. Quick. We introduced the bill in may. We have a hearing about will it not. Or they say it will. I was asked to see if we can compromise. A the bill was ready to be held ver and marked up for seven weeks ive been trying to find a solution. Durbin blaming senator or pelosi or anybody. Gone nowhere. So let me tell you about the committee. What you did to last week. To showk, you chose not up so that i t