tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 15, 2013 2:00am-3:00am EDT
that is our show. see you next week. see you next week. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. senator marco rubio explains a new plan to overhaul the nation's immigration system. from securing the border to creating a path to citizenship, the bipartisan gang of eight senators agree to reforms fire from the left and right. we will talk with one of the chief arenac count aki texts. is there a spring thaw in the washington political gridlock. are compromises suddenly possible on immigration and guns, even the budget. we will discuss chances for deals with senate leaders in charge of the counting votes. democrat dick durbin and republican john cornyn. plus, new threats to peace on
the korean peninsula. a live report from the region and ask the sunday panel about new you developments this week that raised tensions even higher. and our power player of the week. a high school senior are uses tennis to help children cope with a sirius disorder. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. the so-called gang of eight four republican senators and four democrats releases its plan this week for comprehensive immigration reform. at stake, border security, the status of immigrants in the country illegally, and the votes of millions of hispanics. and not surprisingly, it is already drawing heated criticism. joining us now, one of the architects of the plan, senator marco rubio who is in corral gables, florida. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be back, thank you. >> chris: the gang of eight
plan has a tough border enforcement component. 90% apprehension rate, 100% surveillance rate. how far are we from that now on the southwest border? >> in some regions it is important to understand there is no one border. it is broken up into nine different sectors. in some it is being achieved today but in others it is not. three sectors are far from that number and that is what the number needs to come up to. as our plan outlines if in fact it fails to reach the metric the homeland security will lose control of the issue and it will be turned over to a border commission made up of local officials from the states most impacted. they will have money set aseed to solve it for those people themselves. we are confident it is achievable. also not just border security. have to think about e verify as part of the bill is a critical component as well as is the exit entry tracking system. 40% of illegal immigrants are
people that came legally and overstayed. all three have to work together and all three have to happen. >> chris: go back to the border as an example. you say it is a trigger 90% apprehension rate has to be certified by the department of homeland security before the 11 million illegals and this would be a decade from now could begin to apply for green cards but the democrats on your group your gang of eight including dick durbin will be on in the next segment say it is not a trigger, just a goal that they have to be working towards. is it a tricker that has to be met or is it a goal? >> let me tell you why it as trigger. homeland security will have five years to meet the goal. if after five years homeland security has not met the number it will trigger the border commission who will teak over the issue for them. they will have five years to get it done and have to create the two plans. a fence plan. a fence component to this and a border security plan and if the five year mark they have not achieved the 90% and 100% they lose the issue to the border
commission who will have money set aside to finish the job and get to that number. and then, of course, stand that also includes e verify universal and entry exit. all she things have to happen and all three work together to make sure this is the most effective enforcement system that this country ever had if we can get it done. >> chris: look at the other side. illegals have to wait probably 15 years before they can become citizens. this they get temporary legal status. probationary legal status as soon as the department of homeland security announces it has the plan and will begin it the plan and that will be within months. question, why isn't that amnesty because in fact you are living legal status to people who have broken the law and most people here in washington think once they have that status even if it is called temporary it is never going to get revoked, senator. >> i think that is where people of misunderstanding. they don't get anything. they get the opportunity to
apply for it. they still have to qualify. they have to pass the background check. be able to pay a registration fee and pay a fine and have to renew it. this is a renewable thing and then they don't qualify for any federal benefits. an important point. no food stamps, no welfare. no obama care. they have to prove that they are gainfully employed. they have obeyable to support themselves so they will never become a public charge. these are all the things they have to do just to keep the status. the only thing that happens is they will have to stay in that status until at least ten year elapses and the triggers are met. and then the only thing they get is the the chance to apply for a green card via the legal immigration system. we do not award anything to any one. >> chris: but again, and this is what the critics are saying that once they have this "temporary legal status" that nobody is ever going to revoke that and say you know once they have met the standards you you say they paid back back taxes,d a fine, have a job, that nobody
is going to revoke that. i want to put up on the screen what a critic said about the whole issue. i would vote against anything that grants amnesty because i think it destroys your ability to enforce the existing law and i think it is unfair to the people who are standing in line and waiting to come in legally. senator, you said that back in 2009. >> and i still agree with that. this is not amnesty. amnesty is the forgiveness of something. amnesty is anything that says do it illegally it will be cheaper and easier. people need to understand under the existing law today if you are illegally in the united states you are not prohibited from getting a green card and ultimately getting citizenship. you have to go back to your home country and wait ten years and then apply for it. all we are saying is we will create an alternative to that. that will still be in place but we will create an alternative that says you want to stay here, wait more than ten years. pay the fine and pay the registration fee and have to be gainfully employed. you won't qualify for federal
benefits and then after all of that you don't get to apply for anything until the enforcement mechanisms are in place. i would argue it would be cheaper, faster and easier to go back home and wait ten years than it will be to go through the process is i outlined. that is why it the not amnesty. we don't award anything. you have to qualify and apply for it. that is the key distinction. if someone being in the country ellylely is cheaper quicker and easier than doing it the right way i wouldn't support that. that is why i haven't supported certain efforts in the past because i thought they did that. >> chris: you mentioned briefly the question of cost because conservative critics including the heritage foundation think tank say that this plan, your plan is going to be a budget buster. they say that these immigrants once they get the temporary legal status will be able to get all kinds of federal welfare programs and qualify for obama care and that this is going to be a big net drain on our treasury.
>> well, first of all that is obviously we don't have a bill. i don't think they issued an analysis on this yet. that is not true. under the plan not only do you not qualify for federal benefits. under existing law you don't qualify for any federal benefits in the first five years on a green card either. in order to qualify and keep the legal status you must be gainfully employed and paying taxes. in order to get a green card in the future you must prove you have been gainfully employed and you can support yourself. the bottom lien is that is just not accurate. the other point, conservatives love dynamic scoring, saying you look at it not just for the costs but for the benefits associated with it. when we talk about tax cuts we don't think they cost the government money. it generates more revenue because it creates economic growth. i'm asking for the plan to be reviewed through the same conservative dynamic scoring we apply to tax cuts.
i'm confident if you do that and some already started doing that. you will find when we reform the illegal immigration system we get the people that are already here now paying taxes and not taking anything out of system this will be a net positive for the country economically now and in the future. otherwise it is not worth doing. >> chris: senator you clearly are at least considering running for president is 2016. isn't this -- >> says who? >> chris: pardon? >> says who? >> chris: what were you going to say, is, sir? >> says who? who says i'm considering that? >> chris: are you considering that? >> that is a decision far are in the future. at some point in twenty -- i have to decide whether i want to run for reelection or get out of politics. go ahead, i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> chris: that's all right. i interrupt you, you can interrupt me. let's say you are considering running for president in 2016 wouldn't this hurt you in republican primaries? >> i haven't thought about it
that way. i can tell you i have been elected to do a job. my job in the senate is not just to give speeches and do interviews, it is to solve problems. anybody that believes immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. what we have in place today is defactor amnesty. it is not good for any one except human traffickers and people hiring illegal aliens and paying them less than american workers. this is an issue that needs to be solve. those here undocumented. four options. try to round up people and deport them which we know is not a doable thing for 11 million people. make life miserable for them so they will self-deport. hot a plan that i think necessarily works. we can leave it the way it is now. it is more expensive to leave it the way it is now than to reform it. or try to federal government out a way to deal with this issue in a way that ensures this never happens again and this isn't unfair to the people doing it the reit way. that is what i'm working on. a spit position to hold and i think if we he can -- a
conservative position to hold. i think we can gain a lot of support for this proposal. >> chris: senator, we have a couple of minutes left and i want to try to get through some other issues. a lightning round, quick questions, quick answers. you voted this week to filibuster the gun bill. does that mean that you will vote against the manchin toomey compromise to expand background checks when that comes up this week? >> well, to be fair i haven't read it in its totality. i'm very skeptical of any plan that deals with the second amendment because invariably the gun laws end up impeding on the right to people to bear arms who are law abiding. criminals don't care what the law is. criminals ignore it. >> chris: you have is survivors you ported background checks in the florida legislature? >> again, those background checks in florida are for concealed weapons permits. if you have a conceal is ad weapons permit you do a background check. are they going to honor that in all 50 states. do i have to undergo another
pack ground check or will me conceal ised weapons permit be proof that i am not a criminal. these are the sorts of things i hope we will talk about. the bigger point is we are are missing a golden opportunity and focusing so much on guns and we should be focused on violence. violence is the problem. guns is what they are using to commit violence. violence is the central problem. >> chris: the lightning round rules, how do you stop violence, senator? >> i hope we will focus on mental illness and prosecution. are we going to prosecute criminals that treed to buy guns and failed the background check. if we are not going to prosecute them then the law you is useless. we need to take a look at the culture and the decline of the american family and impact it is having not just economically on the society but on the violence. why are so many people desensitized to the murder and suffering of others. why is that happen aing in our culture. i hope we will be honest and have a good conversation because we need to solve that. >> chris: less than a minute
left. you are one of a group of a dozen senators who had dinner this week with president obama. would you consider a grand bargain with serious entitlement reform more serious than the president has offered so far if the cost of that is that you get more taxes through limiting deductions? >> well, i don't agree with that way. view it as economic growth. my view is to get the economy to grow robustly. i believe we can't cut our way out of this and tax our way out of this. the only way out of this is robust economic growth combined with fiscal discipline. if there is a deal that does that i would love to support it. just a deal where we raise taxes to hurt growth in exchange for cosmetic changes to other programs i'm not going to support that. the only thing i will support are programs that further economic growth. growth is the only solution to the problem. we need to grow the economy at 4 to 5% a year sustained over ten years. that will solve our problem and that is what i hope we will work on. >> chris: senator rubio.
>> chris: something special happened in the washington this week. no, into the the blooming of the cherry blossoms though that was lovely but serious compromises on immigration, guns and the budget. joining us the two senators who count the votes for possible deals. illinois senator are dick durbin from chicago and john cornyn. nintenjohn
can you support that the ellegals get status within months as soon as they announce the plan. not that they actually achieved it but the plan for border security or is that amnesty. >> i found it to be a good practice to read the bill before you comment on it whether you can survivors you port it or not. i want to chatham' encouraged -- that i'm encouraged by what the so called gang of eight including senator are durbin and rubio and others have come up with. i was here last time we we debated on the floor of the senate and i have the scars to prove it. >> chris: could you accept temporary legal status for illegals before the border has actual le been secured? >> i believe border security is absolutely critical to the picture and so much of it is regaining the public confidence that the federal government is doing its job. until that confidence is restored on the basis of what
the legislation provides, i would have difficulty supporting it. but having said, that i want to read it. i want to go through the regular process on the judiciary committee out on the floor and i'm open certainly to supporting immigration reform. >> chris: senator durbin let me ask you the same question i asked senator rubio. is this 90% apprehension rate a trigger as he says or a goal as you and some of the other democrats on the gang of eight say? >> well, it is an important question but i think what marco rubio said real le put his finger on it. let's the put it in context, chris. our border with mexico is the safest and strongest it has been in 40 years. we invested billions of dollars into border enforcement. we are outing more money into border enforcement than we are putting into the fbi and secret was a and atf and dea combined and yet saying if we don't meet all of the goals we set in years to come we will put more investment there.
there comes a point where we are working with the local units of government and making the investments and i think moving forward the type of border security which everyone wants to see in america. most certainly conservatives like marco rubio. >> chris: so you know an easy question, easy answer. is it a goal or a trigger? >> well, i think it is both. i think it is both. in terms of saying we are going to shut down the whole system if we don't hit the number, you know, this is a tough thing to when he sure at some point. we may be within a point or two here or there. we are going work with the local stakeholders in trying to make sure that we make the necessary investments to close the gap. we are committed to it. it was the beginning part of the conversation. every republican at the table said we have got to start with border security. get that right. and we will stick around for the rest of the conversation. i think we have kept faith on that issue. >> chris: gentlemen, let's turn to guns which is another big issue you will be talking about this week in the senate. senator cornyn, you met with the newtown victimsyoutown this week and after meeting
with them you said that they wanted mental health reform first. francine wheeler the mother of one of the young children killed at newtown delivered the president's weekly media address this week and here is what she said. >> our younger son ben age six was murdered in his first grade classroom exactly four months ago this weekend. please help us do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy. >> chris: senator, in that message the only thing she mentioned was tougher gun control. >> i think in my meeting with the sandy hook families they told me that and, of course, you know who wouldn't be -- who wouldn't have is sympathy and empathy for these people that suffered a terrible loss. they wanted to make sure that that i loved one did not die in vain and something good would come out of this. i think that is why i'm focused like a laser on the mental
health component. >> chris: forgive me, sir,, they are focused on tougher gun control the background check. >> adam lanza stole his mother's guns. a background check wouldn't have stopped that incident. a background check should have stopped james holmes in and the virginia tech shooter. i think the mental illness issue is the common element we ought to be focused on and i think we can do some good things. i'm not for symbolism over substance. we can't just pat ourselves on the back and say we will pass enhanced pennal a penalties for trafficking or other issues or background checks when they don't really go to solve the problems that caused the terrible tragedies. >> chris: senator durbin you and senator cornyn are the
whips, the vote counters, know whether or not there are are enough votes. are there enough votes when this comes up this week for you to pass the manchin toomey compromise on expanded background checks? >> i think john will concede that pat toomey of pennsylvania is one of the most conservative members of the republican senate caucus and joe manchin one of the most conservative members of the democratic caucus. the two have come up with a background proposal supported by 90% of the people in america and 75% of the members of the national rifle association. i hope that the 16 senators and more will step up and join the approach to make sure that the the background checks extend beyond where they are today to try to reach the 40% of firearms being sold without background checks. >> chris: do you have the votes or not? >> we haven't whipped it. when it gets down to it we have to have the basic question should we try to keep guns out o of the hands of felons and
people so mentally unstable they shouldn't own a firearm. if the answer is yes, manchin toomey is a step in that direction. >> chris: do you have the votes to block it? >> i'm interested in debate and discussion. if manchin toomey were the law of the land today, none of the four of the most recent tragedies involved in gun violence would have been prevented. >> chris: proponents say that doesn't matter. >> what matters is we not engage in a symbolic act and leave the problem unsolved. i would like to focus on the common element of the recent tragedies which is the mental health issue. >> chris: move even to the budget. the president submitted his budget this week which calls for entitlement reforms and cuts but also more taxes through limiting dedelaware countyions. here is how house speaker john boehner react. >> he wants to hold the reforms hostage for another round of tax i increases.
that is no way to compromise and move the country and frankly that is no way to lead. >> chris: senator durbin you supported chain cpi in the past as a more accurate way to measure cost of living adjustments. if it would be a is sensible and accurate cut, if it would help preserve social security, why not just vote for it and split it off, not link it to the question of raising taxes? >> chris, let me tell you. this really gets down to the basics. if in fact the republicans are genuine and sincere about dealing with the budget deficit for goodness sakes we t have to put everything on the table. the president stuck his neck out and i can tell you he is getting beaten up on the left by it. what i have said is the chain cpi can be part of our effort to reform social security and make sure it has 75 years of solvency. that is what the president is aiming for. that is what i'm aiming for. when boehner speaker boehner just dismisses this and says if the word tax is in there then
grover norquist and i are leaveing that is no way to run a country. >> chris: senator cornyn is the president's budget at least a starting point, a place to begin negotiations both on entitlement reform and higher taxes? >> on the chain cpi issue i think it does represent some modest progress. but you have to recognize the fact this budget was two months late. it raises taxes another trillion dollars or contemplates that and never balances. so i give the president credit he did put this on the table. i know dick would agree with this chain cpi won't save social security and medicare. we have to do more. >> chris: if they were willing to do more would you be willing to put taxes on the table? >> i would be willing to talk about what a grand bargain would look like. >> chris: including taxes?
>> the president got taxes in january and it is a wrong thing to raise taxes a trillion dollars on top of the $1.6 trillion. >> chris: would you consider it or not? >> i'm happy to talk any day about anything just about. i think the president got his tax increase. >> chris: one last issue i want to get into with both of you and that is north korea. secretary of state kerry in seoul this weekend said that the u.s. and south korea are willing to return to talks and even to consider more aid to north korea if that regime pulls back from its nuclear program. senator durbin, this sounds familiar. do we really want to go down this path again, more talks and more aid to the north koreans? >> the last thing we want is the launch of any kind of nuclear miss is sill or nuclear weapon on the korean peninsula or anywhere in the world. we have got to deescalate the rhetoric and test going on in north korea and we are turning primarily touching and saying it is time for -- to china and
saying it is time too step up and show leadership in this region of the world. we are are prepared to work toward a common goal of peace but we need the chief niece to tell the north koreans if they want to continue the escalation of rhetoric it is at the expense of the safety of this world as well as a their own economy. i think secretary kerry has it right. we are willing to step forward but we want to see positive measures from the north koreans that bring down the harsh and hot rhetoric that we have heard so often in the last few weeks. >> chris: senator cornyn a year ago you accused of obama administration of a policy of appeasement your words towards north korea. how do you think you are handling the current. >> i'm not for paying a leader like kim jong un a ransom. i'm concerned heel make a mistake or something could happen which could result in the kind of conflict that dick just alluded to. none of us wants that. i don't see that this policy of
paying a ransom just to get him to tone down rhetoric has been successful. just sort of like a bad movie and we keep seeing the reruns. >> chris: finally, 30 seconds left. senator durbin. you are chairing a hear this week about the president's drone policy. do you think congress should have a role in deciding when and where and who the u.s. strikes with drones? >> yes, do i. and i think the constitution is clear. the fonding fathers said the people of america will decide when we go to war through the elected members of congress. those are the questions we have to raise now. the drones offered us a new technology but an age old question. when is america at war? how far can that war go? who are the combatants in the war? and in this circumstance when it comes to targets in foreign lands does it make a difference if it is an american or not the an american? critical constitutional questions. not my idea. the idea of the founding fathers. >> chris: senator durbin and cornyn, we thank you both.
>> chris: the latest on north korea. secretary of state john kerry is in tokyo continuing efforts to diffuse tensions in the region. kerry met with chinese leaders saturday, getting at least rhetorical support from the only government that may be able to get north korea to scale back its nuclear program. fox news correspondent greg palkot is tracking developments from the south korean capital of seoul. >> reporter: secretary kerry is wrapping up a high stakes diplomatic tour of the region trying to deal with the looming threat 6 north korea and a possible missile launch.
finished a meeting with the japanese foreign minister and offered a possible peaceful resolution of the crisis through negotiations. he also said that north korea has to commit to giving up its nukes. and he also said that the u.s. is ready to dehe fend itself and its allies. finally he had a stern warning for pyongyang. take a listen. >> the north has to understand and i believe must by now that its threats and its provokations are only going to isolate it further and immoverrish are its people even further. >> reporter: and north korea and its young leader did respond rejecting the calls for dialogue calling them a cunning ploy and saying that they would never negotiate until the united states drops its confrontational attitude. meanwhile the midrange missiles with the possible reach of the u.s. military base in guam remain set for use. a u.s. official here tells me that he doesn't believe a firing is imminent but they are
mobile launched and they are quickly readied. by the way, a target date for the launch has been monday. that is the birthday celebration of the founder of north korea, kim i will sung. a possible path right over japan. secretary kerry wraps up in japan on monday. >> chris: greg palkot reporting live from seoul south korea. thanks for that. team for the sunday group. scott brown. democratic strategist marjorie clifton. karl rove and former democratic senator evan bayh. guy arguru is a nice thing. you should be happy with that. >> you can call me swamee. >> chris: said they would consider abouting goldman sachs even giving aid.g back to talk.
>> we would engage in bilateral talks under the right circumstances but it is up to our friends to decide what they think those circumstances for them might be. >> chris: senator brown is that the right is signal for us to be sending to north korea now? bluster enough and we will give aid and at least have talks with kim jong un. >> every time they rattle the swords we will have talks with them and give them more aid. the bottom line is china needs to become fully engaged and they are not. if they become fully engaged i do not think that they want to see a north korea exporting terrorism around the region and the world. they have to get involved right away. >> chris: i want to pick up on the question of china because kerry went to china where he made a proposition of them that
the u.s. would pull some of its defenses including antimissile defenses out of the region if north korea were going to pull back on its nuclear program. senator bayh as a former member of the intelligence committee what are the chances you think that china will actually pressure its really pressure not just talk about it its client state of north korea? >> i think the chances are good, chris. the problem is it won't ultimately get us what we want. the north koreans will never agree to completely denuclearize. it ensures the survival of their a a good morning. they looked at what happened in iraq a country that did not have nuclear weapons and they don't want to be attacked so they will want to keep their nuclear. they don't care about their people starving. they care about regime maintenance. that is why they want to keep the nukes.
>> chris: what struck me about kerry's trip and not just the soft talk but the hard talk about this is unacceptable is frankly what we heard about the george w. bush administration. we say we are not going to accept it but do accept it or at least are unable to do anything to stop it. is that fair? >> there are limits to how much you can pressure the north koreans. thed a a menstruation has administration has remedies- te available. 13 years ago the leader of north korea is leaving a swiss boarding school where he was a mediocre student who participated in the campus production of grease. he is acting tough to prove to the military in his own country he is a leader. >> did he have a better hair cut? >> apparently not. i have seen the pictures.
cheap has given out nice noises in the last 48-723 hours. it is a sign of the difficulty of this. it came as a result of kerry saying to them if you get north korea to do something positive we are open to withdrawing the defenses the missile defenses that we extended to cover our allies korea and japan. and this is a sign of the difficulty of the situation because that may make china feel good but it doesn't make seoul and tokyo happy at all. >> i agree this kim jong il has this eye den fi eye den identi. we don't know how crazy they are because frankly we haven't dealt with them in the same way that we have with iran or pakistan. worked for them to say look we got this nuclear power and got them the foreign aid they wanted. if they want to be a power player and have economic relevance on the international stage this is the only tool they see that they have. >> chris: senator bach i
mentioned that you were a former member of the senate intelligence committee. we had confusion about whether or not north korea has the capacity. we know they had missiles and bombs, nuclear bombs but the defense intelligence agency apparently thinks that they now have a warhead capability to put a nuclear weapon on the tip of a missile. then the defense director of national intelligence pushed back and the white house pushed back. as a former member of senate intelligence what do you make of the seeming disarray in the intel community? >> this reflects the difficulty of truly assessing what is going on in north korea. we have differing opinions. the dia may have one opinion and the cia another. there is no consensus right now. and so and that is even the dia only has moderate reliability theyrms of the conclusion this reached. this is the challenge. karl referred to it. operating with less than
perfect information. the consequences of making a mistake are grave. have to assume the worst and realize the bottom line here is they probably don't have the capability. >> chris: take us inside the white house. how do policymakers make decisions when you don't really know what is going on on the ground? >> remember, first of all, the situation with the differences between the dia and the director of national intelligence this is normal. the intelligence is rarely if ever 100% in agreement. the intelligence community tries to arrive at a consensus. the president has to go on the basis of the best information he has possible. in this situation we do know one inning for certain. they want to have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon on an intercontinental missile. they said ja ma japan will be a of nuclear fire. they want to have is the ability to launch against the united states. they put the intercepters back
in alaska that would protect the continental united states that is so important. >> chris: and iran is watching all of this and thinking if north korea is handled so gingerly if they can get the nuclear capability welcome to the club as well. we have to take a break here. when we come back we will tackle the coming storm over immigration reform. you won't want to miss it. with the spark cash card from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, ease? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every pchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your walle and didn't know where to start. used a contractor before told you i'd get half. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you.
no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more, angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey.
the only thing that happen as is that they will have to stay in the status until at least ten years' lapses and the triggers are met. all that has to happen and then the only thing they get is the chance to apply for a green card via the legal immigration system. we do not award anything to any one. >> chris: senator marco rubio earlier this this program
starting the long hard sell of immigration reform. and we are back now with the panel. well, you heard senator rubio he and others other senators talk about it today. a lot of the details senator brown had been leaked out in the papers. from what you have heard are so far, what do you think of the gang of eight's emgrea immigran plan and the conservative criticism that, however, you want to dress it up and put lipstick on it, it is amnesty. >> i had an opportunity t speak to marco last night and i got a full briefing on what he was trying to do. it as good start. pointed out there are are 92 other senators that need to play a role. let them file amendments and feel like they are part of the process. if harry reid and chuck schumer try to ram it through it will not pass. >> chris: what about the danger
it ends up getting anybodiled to death. >> that is a danger. that is where marco and schumer and other have to hold the line. i commend the gang of eight for doing what they are trying to do. the key is the enforcement. i like the high skilled worker. i like the fact that there is no federal benefits to anybody until they he actually get in line and ultimately get citizenship. that is huge for a lot of the conservatives and quite frankly many of the democrats. >> chris: marjorie this is an issue you worked on a lot. your sense of this and its political viability? >> there has been no time like the present in that we saw the power of the latino vote coming out of the past election. both parties know the inevitablity and necessity of having the voting poll going into future elections. we had voices we never had before. sean hannity onboard with the policy and mark zuckerberg speaking out on it. the republican national committee. and 80% of the public agreeing about the path to citizenship.
the key thing to talk about is not amnesty but accountability. a pro is sessions that presents as you said paying back taxes and paying your due and keeping up with the rights and security. border are security is stronger than it has been for 40 years in this country. we are spending $18 billion right now. we have 21,000 border security agents. a different time. we were talking about piece meal. it is a time for path to citizenship. >> chris: karl, you had this sounds familiar you had your run with george w. bush at immigration reform in the bush white house and you ran into a road block. what do you think are the chances that republicans especially house republicans will be willing to stomach what you just heard today? >> well, if the bill is along the lines of what marco rubio laid out with the very tough border standards, border security standards with a long path to citizenship that involves penalties. amnesty is the forgiveness of offense without penalties. there are penalties in the bill.
penalty of time. requires them to wait until the boarder is secured and then begin a long process. 13 years or longer before anybody can become a citizen. money.ty of months of private pay a mine and pay the cost of monitoring them to make sure that they stay employed. they have to learn english and remain employed and a penalty in something being withdrawn. you cannot get a single benefit including obama care until and unless you become a citizen. as long as it is done as senator brown made an important point, regular order. this was killed in 2007 because harry reid derailed a very careful process set up by the white house senator kennedy and senator mccain that had 94 amendments set up to vote. senator bayh would have been there i think at the time to vote on them. and that was important because the legislation has to have the consensus of republicans and democrats that they have had a chance to write it as best they could. >> chris: senator bayh strikes me that the toughest part of
the bill for the conservatives whether it is amnesty or are not amnesty is that the 11 million illegal immigrants now, in the country are are going to get legal status and a lot of people think that it will never get revoked. i think the toughest part for liberals is the fact that it is tough and there are are enforcements because it is going to be a decade or longer. in that sense that it will tick off people on the right and the left has the gang of eight hit the sweet spot here? >> i think they have chris. it shows why this is hard and hasn't been done until now. we as democrats need to decide to solve it substantively, in which case respect the need tore border security or do we want an issue you for the mid term elections. i think this balance really puts us on the right path to solving the issue substantively. there are significant elements within the republican party. you heard some here and others mentioned that are for this. democrats are for this.
i actually in a dysfunctional, washington, give this a better than 50/are 50 chance of getting something done because you are seeing that kind of consensus reform. >> chris: i would like to say that we had an exclusive interview with marco rubio this morning. i would lie because he set a new record and did seven talk shows. he is all in on immigration reform which raises the question, karl, what does this do to his political concepts. particularly we jousted about this if he is thinking about 2016. >> if the bill gets passed it will say something to h his leadership and others of the gang of eight. this sounds strange coming from me. i'm delighted and amaze ad with the leadership being shown by people as diverse and flake andorra ben and schumer and rubio. the democrats and republicans have tried to cobble together a bill that is thoughtful, sensitive, tough and with an eye towards getting something done. the leadership from the eight people. i can imagine what the dynamic
any time you have is chuck schumer in a room you have is to o have seven adults to control him. >> wow. >> we were on the path to bipartisanship, karl. a beautiful moment lost. >> there are three democrats in there worried about chuck schumer as well. the leadership that the group has shown. >> chris: you are not answering the question. what does this to his presidential prospects? >> it helps him because he is seen to be a leader. >> chris: give somebody to the right of him in the tea party to say you are soft on immigration. >> jeff flake is a tea party. marco rubio is a tea party. raul who is on the house working group a tea party. john courter of texas. >> chris: you know somebody is going to -- >> leaders do things because they are important not because they guarantee them 100% acceptance. >> winning the nomination is not enough. this may complicate the nominating process if he runs but makes him a more attractive candidate for people looking
for problem solving and bipartisanship. >> the key is to make sure that there is no federal benefits given and regular order and everyone is part of the process and as you pointed out you don't let chuck schumer start cut deals because he wants to be major leaders. >> and congress needs this win and our country had toes this bipartisan win. >> chris: 30 second is left. senator brown there is talk that you might make a senate run again in 2014. but not in massachusetts, in new hampshire. why new hampshire? >> i'm not going to comment on that obviously. i think it is important to continue to do my job here and challenge people to do things better. >> chris: but you you did say nothing is off the table? >> nothing off the table and nothing on the table. recharging the batteries and working hard. >> a ninth generation new hampshirite is the dirty little secret. his mother lives there. >> chris: sounds like an endorsement from the guru. check out panel plus where the group picks up with the discuss follow us one and 2308 us on
>> chris: for ten weeks in the budget the spring and fall he and his buddies teach children with the disorder how to play tennis. >> it seems like athletics or exercise could provide either a supplement or take the place of drugs in some cases. >> it all started when jason was a kid. he and his parents notice h his brother zach who was four years older was different. >> zach would sometimes straggle with just doing homework or remembering certain things in the morning and
getting ready for school. >> chris: one thing seemed to help. >> forehand. >> nice. >> zach and i would play tennis and we could see the importance of exercise and how it helped him stay calm and stay on task. >> all right, guys. going to do one big lap all the way around. >> over the years jason figured if it helped zach it could help other children with autism. he started you too tennis. >> maybe i could help more kids out and a way to get more kids involved. >> chris: why did you call it you too? >> children with autism who wouldn't normally be able to engage in a sport and may oft oen be drag the group behind. it emphasizes now they can have a chance to play a is sport and have a sense of belonging and ownership. they enjoy interacting with the high school kids. >> chris: but that presented another problem. jason is going to college next year and worried the program would die when left. so he has been teaching some of the younger kids from potomac high school how to keep it
going. >> when it comes summer and they are sending out the distribution and setting up the program and reserving courts and getting funding and talking to different sources i think they willle do a great job. >> when i asked jason why he devotes so much time to you too, he remembered the first year when they finished the fall session. >> one job he was tearing up a little bit. i said toby what is wrong and he said well, we will never get to play tennis again. i said no, we will have a session again this spring and there is children starting shy and nervous on the court and by the end they own the court and confident and having fun and talking to us. it is fun for myself and all of the other in strengthors, too. >> chris: jason is headed to the university of pennsylvania which has a program in autism research. and he plans to keep working in that field. and that is it for today. have a great week. and we'll see you next "fox news sunday."