Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - May 19, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the majority leader and the Democratic leader are still in the Chamber, I wish to express my gratitude to each of them, as well as the managers of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that is in the Chamber and that we have been debating this week, for the progress we have made. I think it has been in the greatest traditions of the Senate that we have taken a controversial subject where debate that has been long overdue and we have had an open and honest and vigorous debate on many important amendments that have helped improve the bill, from my perspective. But this is the Senate at its best. While we know we will not always agree with one another, there is one place on the face of the planet where we have the freedom, we have the opportunity to have debates and try to build consensus.

I know there are some--and I was just on a talk show moments before I came to the floor, and the person hosting that had expressed some frustration about what has been going on here, and I encouraged him to think of this according to the old adage that watching legislation being made is somehow like watching sausage being made.

Parenthetically, I note sometimes that we maybe give sausage-making a bad name, but in all sincerity the important thing is that we are having the debate, we are having votes, and majorities are ruling. I do not necessarily always like the outcome of those votes. Sometimes I do. But the fact is that we are having votes and we are letting the process move forward. Hopefully we will have a comprehensive reform bill passed by the Senate, a bill we can be proud of and will then be sent to the President's desk for consideration and possible signature. My hope is we will continue to have this process move forward and have an opportunity to call up additional amendments.

I wanted to speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer not today but at a later time. I have previously spoken about this issue.

The compromise bill that is currently in the Chamber contains language that prohibits information sharing and restricts how the Department of Homeland Security may use information submitted in applications. The text in the underlying bill is exactly the same as that contained in the 1986 amnesty legislation. Twenty years ago now, we know from hindsight and experience, those provisions led to hundreds of thousands of ineligible aliens receiving green cards. The amendment I intend to offer does not eliminate the confidentiality provisions. It does, however, state that once an individual's application is denied, there is no longer a need for confidentiality, and that information may be shared with law enforcement personnel, that may be necessary to investigate fraud and bring others to justice.

The underlying bill says that information furnished by an applicant can only be used to make a determination on that specific application. The information may also be used in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution. But if the Department of Homeland Security identifies a pattern of fraud, it would be prohibited from using that information in one fraudulent application to deny another application that was submitted as part of a criminal conspiracy. The same restrictions were included in the 1986 legislation program, and that caused widespread fraud and abuse. There is no reason to treat legalization applications any differently from any other immigration application submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.

The New York Times described the 1986 agricultural worker amnesty as ``One of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government.'' Although the estimated size of the illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was only about 300,000 to 400,000 out of a total agricultural workforce of 2.5 million, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under the program.

Let me make sure that is clear. Although the estimated size of the illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was only 300,000 to 400,000, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under that program.

The confidentiality provisions of the 1986 act were credited with causing the widespread fraud and abuse. In 1999, the General Counsel during the Clinton administration testified before the House that ``the confidentiality restrictions of the law in the 1986 amnesty also prevented the Immigration and Naturalization Service from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the application process.''

In 1995, a man by the name of Jose Velez, the ex-president of LULAC, was found guilty of immigration fraud after he filed fraudulent applications under the 1986 amnesty. The task force that brought down that particular conspiracy resulted in guilty pleas or convictions of 20 individuals who together were responsible for filing false legalization applications for in excess of an estimated 11,000 unqualified aliens. In other words, 20 people pled guilty to falsified legalization applications for in excess of 11,000 unqualified aliens.

Between March of 1988 and January 1991, Velez and his coconspirators submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent applications. In connection with the 1986 legalization program, there were 920 arrests, 822 indictments, 513

convictions for fraud and related criminal activity.

(Mr. Isakson assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CORNYN. This is not about history. This is about what is also happening even today. I am reminded of the report of the 9/11 Commission and the studies and investigations we conducted after 9/11 which indicated a consensus that we had to bring down some of the stovepipes that prohibited information sharing in our intelligence community. Essentially this amendment is designed to bring down the stovepipes that have prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from sharing information that would lead to discovery of evidence of massive fraud in our immigration system. I hope that when the amendment is called up, when we have a chance to vote on it, my colleagues will support it.

But again, this is not just about history. This is about what is happening today. I have in front of me a news release dated May 19, 2006, from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency entitled ``Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy.''

This is out of Atlanta, GA, which may be of particular interest to the Presiding Officer. Several individuals--it looks like six individuals were indicted by a Federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on charges of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements in applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security. They were charged in separate counts for making false statements in applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security, and also there were two counts of money laundering.

The U.S. attorney in charge described this conspiracy in these words:

The six individuals indicted in this conspiracy were involved in a multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who were illegally present in the United States to file fraudulent applications for amnesty with the Department of Homeland Security. The defendants, as part of a money making scheme, allegedly assisted immigrants who did not meet legitimate amnesty program requirements to file applications containing false statements. This office--

The Office of the U.S. Attorney-- is committed to vigorous investigation and prosecution of schemes such as this one as part of the President's initiative to strengthen enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws.

The U.S. attorney goes on to say:

Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal immigration system for personal financial gain, they used their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the immigrant community.

That statement was attributed to Ken Smith, special agent in charge of the Office of Immigration and Custom Enforcement. That office is located in Atlanta. He goes on to say:

This case highlights the importance of ICE's close partnership with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to dismantle criminal document and benefit fraud networks.

Mr. President, I will not read the rest of this news release, but I will ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks this document be made part of the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

So, Mr. President, we have had a productive week in the Senate dealing with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Each of us has perhaps won some and lost some in terms of the amendments we favored or disfavored, but I think it has been a good week for the Senate, a good week for the cause of securing our borders and restoring public respect for our laws. At the same time, as we continue to be a nation that does welcome legal immigration, one of the things that I will say that I hope we continue to focus on is what in our immigration system really is in America's best interest--recognizing that we can't simply open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come to the United States or we would be swamped by a veritable tsunami of humanity.

We should continue to be a welcoming country but one that respects not only our heritage as a nation of immigrants but also respects our heritage as a nation of laws. Indeed, at this time, we are trying to export that heritage as not only the Democratic country that respects democracy but one that respects the rule of law in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and so we need to tend to business here at home.

But as we continue to debate and discuss and hopefully pass laws that are in America's best interest and improve our system, we will look at exactly what type of legal immigration we should encourage. I would ask my colleagues to not only focus on the massive low-skilled immigration that is part of this underlying bill but also focus on those people who have special talents and special educational credentials and experience, highly skilled individuals whom we ought to encourage to come to this country and, if they want to become American citizens, provide them an opportunity to do so. When we look at the costs associated with the underlying bill, what we have learned is low-skilled, poorly educated individuals are more likely to be a financial burden on the American taxpayer than those who are highly skilled and highly educated. Indeed, those highly skilled and highly educated legal immigrants whom we ought to be encouraging to come to the United States and become part of this great country are people who are going to help America to continue to be competitive in the global marketplace.

That includes, of course, foreign students who study at our universities.

I personally believe that when someone graduates with one of these important advance degrees in math, science, engineering, the very sorts of skills and talents which will make America competitive, we ought to give them preferential treatment when it comes to their application for legal permanent residency and putting them in line for American citizenship, if that is their wish.

I hope what is not lost in all of this debate about immigration reform is America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants, our heritage as a nation that believes in the rule of law. What that means to me is we ought to be encouraging legal immigration that is in the best interests of this Nation while discouraging and preventing illegal immigration by comprehensive border security, interior enforcement, worksite verification, and sanctions against employers who cheat, while we also create a legal immigration system to deal with the workforce needs and our prosperity in America going forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov