Speech #1090138736

As I mentioned. my amendment is modeled after the current legal protections provided in the Violence Against Women Act. which allows the Government to share and use information submitted in an application "when the application for relief is denied and all opportunities for appeal of that denial have been exhausted." If the limitation is OK in that context. why is it not appropriate in this context? I dont believe this amendment would deter any alien from applying for legal status. Illegal workers face deportation. a secure border. and worksite enforcement. We may hear some say that in order for undocumented individuals to come forward and take advantage of the legalization program provided by this underlying bill. we cant do anything that might cause them to secondguess or question whether they should come forward. But the fact is. I think there has to be a balance struck. I dont believe any illegal alien will be deterred from participating in the very generous provisions of this underlying bill because of concerns that if their application is denied. that information can then be shared with law enforcement personnel. The fact is. the kinds of things we are looking out for are fraudmassive fraudschemes which would be designed to undermine the very structure of this negotiated comprehensive immigration reform bill. Paul Virtue. President Clintons general counsel at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. testified before Congress that: The confidentiality restrictions of law [in the 1986 amnesty] also prevented INS from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the application process. That was before the House Judiciary Committee on March 4. 1999. One of our colleagues who was then in the House of Representatives. Senator SCHUMER. was quoted in the New York Times in 1989 as saying: One certain product of the agricultural amnesty program . . . is that in developing immigration policies in the future. Congress will be much more wary of the potential for fraud and will do more to stop it. It has been said famously that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to relive it. I suggest to my colleagues that we should have learned something from the massive fraud in the 1986 amnesty. and we should not relive that in this bill today. This amendment improves the current bill by preserving the confidentiality of applicants while allowing the Government to share information. perhaps to uncover massive frauds. criminal syndicates that are designed to try to circumvent the protections in this bill and gain access to our country and our immigration system in spite of massive criminal organized crime. I ask my colleagues. do we really want to grant impunity for fraud? Do we really want to invite criminals and those who would perpetrate such fraud to do so again when we have the very tools at our command which will allow us to strike the proper balance between prosecution for fraud and yet at the same time encouraging those who would benefit from this program to come forward?