[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 31, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H333-H338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD ACT

  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 980, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 6678) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed 
Social Security fraud are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the House Resolution 980, in 
lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 
118-23 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6678

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consequences for Social 
     Security Fraud Act''.

     SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED TO SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY FRAUD OR IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT 
                   FRAUD.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) Social security fraud or identification document 
     fraud.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits 
     having committed, or who admits committing acts which 
     constitute the essential elements of an offense under section 
     208 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to 
     social security account numbers or social security cards), an 
     offense under section 1028 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with 
     identification documents, authentication features, and 
     information), or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is 
     inadmissible.''.
       (b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Social security fraud or identification document 
     fraud.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits 
     having committed, or who admits committing acts which 
     constitute the essential elements of an offense under section 
     208 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to 
     social security account numbers or social security cards), an 
     offense under section 1028 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with 
     identification documents, authentication features, and 
     information), or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is 
     deportable.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further 
amendment printed in part B of House Report 118-362, if offered by the 
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall 
be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 6678.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6678 makes aliens inadmissible to and removed from 
the United States for committing Social Security fraud and 
identification document fraud.
  The numbers are staggering. In 2017, before the Democrats opened our 
borders and produced the largest illegal mass migration in recorded 
history, there were 1.2 million cases in which illegal aliens used 
Social Security numbers that either belonged to someone else or were 
simply fabricated.
  A 2020 GAO report on employment-related identity fraud identified 
more than 2.9 million Social Security numbers with risk characteristics 
associated with Social Security number misuse.
  Last year, an investigative report published by 
RealClearInvestigations said this: ``Reports dating back over a decade 
show that hundreds of thousands of Americans are unknowingly `sharing' 
their Social Security numbers with illegal immigrants.
  ``Such victims may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or 
depleted benefits. Worse, some may experience the burden of bad credit 
histories and criminal records inaccurately attributed to themselves 
after being issued Social Security numbers that illegal aliens had 
previously invented and used.
  ``The overall impact on American citizens is largely unknown because 
Federal, State, and local governments as well as financial institutions 
have generally failed to notify them even when fraud is suspected.''
  The Trump administration documented the extent of fraud during which 
time it notified 1.6 million employers of employees whose Social 
Security numbers didn't match government records.
  The Biden administration then took over and has since brought 5 
million illegal aliens into the United States.
  They stopped the practice of notifying employers of fraudulent use of 
Social Security numbers. No doubt it was just too embarrassing.

[[Page H334]]

  This has been going on for years, but it is sure to have grown 
exponentially during the Biden administration. We don't know because 
the administration doesn't want us to know.
  The current process for holding illegal aliens accountable for ID 
fraud is bureaucratized to the point of absurdity.
  In one case, for example, an illegal alien trafficking in phony 
identification documents was placed in removal proceedings in 2005, and 
then nothing happened until 2013 when the endless appeals process 
finally concluded.
  Despite the harm of Social Security fraud and the increasing number 
of illegal aliens committing it, there is no guarantee that an illegal 
alien committing it can be declared inadmissible to or removed from the 
United States.
  In fact, in at least the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and potentially the Fourth Circuit and 10th 
Circuit, certain Social Security fraud offenses do not carry 
immigration consequences.
  This bill changes that arduous, counterintuitive, and lengthy process 
by streamlining the analysis and ensuring that criminal aliens can be 
held to account and quickly removed from the country for victimizing 
Americans through Social Security and identification document fraud.
  In doing so, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act protects 
Americans and strengthens the immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I address the specifics of this bill, I want to 
address what we heard from the Speaker a few minutes ago.
  The Speaker said that section 212(f) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act cannot be used to ``shut down the border.''
  Former President Trump agreed with him. He tried to do exactly what 
Speaker Johnson says in 2018. That action was immediately enjoined and 
declared unlawful.
  You cannot use section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the border, but 
the Speaker knows this. That is why he had the House pass H.R. 2. If 
212(f) were sufficient, why did we need a bill?
  The Republicans passed H.R. 2, but the Republicans should know that 
this is a bicameral institution, and there is also a President.
  H.R. 2 can go nowhere. The Senate won't even look at it, but we know 
that conservative Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate 
have been negotiating for a very, very strong, very powerful, very 
conservative immigration bill, which they have come up with, much too 
conservative for many Democrats--I am not sure I am going to vote for 
it--far more conservative than anything we have considered on the floor 
besides H.R. 2.

  Yet, the Speaker says he won't hear of it. Why? Because the former 
President said he wants the issue. He was very clear, as was Mr. Nehls: 
Don't pass anything so that former President Trump can campaign on 
immigration in the fall.
  Don't solve the problem. Save the problem as a campaign issue. That 
is what they are doing. If they weren't doing that, they would 
seriously consider the Senate bill.
  What is even more pernicious is that they have joined together the 
close the border issue, the border issue, which is a valid issue, but 
they have lumped it together with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.
  I was on the steps of the House with the Speaker and many others 
touting our solidarity with Israel. Yet, what are we going to do?
  Trump and the Speaker, doing Trump's bidding, don't want us to pass 
an immigration bill, which they have tied up with aid to Israel and aid 
to Ukraine.
  We are not going to aid Israel. We are going to let Putin take over 
Ukraine. We are not going to send arms to Taiwan. We are not going to 
send humanitarian aid.
  We are going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to abandon Israel. We 
are going to abandon Taiwan. We are going to abandon our Pacific 
allies.
  Why? Because President Trump wants a campaign issue on immigration. 
This is shameful. Shameful. The Speaker knows it to be the case, and I 
challenge the Speaker to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Let's see 
what happens.
  When the Senate passes a very conservative bill, which they seem on 
track to do, bring it to the floor of the House, and let's see what 
happens. I bet it passes, but let's see what happens.
  Mr. Speaker, addressing this bill, let's be clear: Social Security 
fraud is a serious issue. It is also largely already a deportable 
offense.
  If H.R. 6678 closed an actual gap in current law, Democrats would 
gladly support it. Unfortunately, this bill represents another 
unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat 
immigrants, and to score cheap political points, while doing nothing to 
fix our immigration system.
  While I have several concerns with this bill, I would like to focus 
on the issue of deportability because that is the most troubling aspect 
of this legislation.
  H.R. 6678 eliminates the requirement that we first charge and convict 
a person for Social Security fraud before we make them deportable.
  This is concerning and stands in stark contrast to most other 
criminal deportability grounds within our immigration laws.
  Barring a few exceptions, criminal offenses require a conviction to 
render a noncitizen deportable. This is especially important given who 
would be most impacted by this legislation.
  This section of H.R. 6678 is not about deporting undocumented 
immigrants who are, of course, already deportable, and it is not about 
preventing people from entering the United States.
  The deportability provisions in this legislation target lawful, 
permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, 
many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and who have truly 
established themselves here in the United States.
  A lot of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens 
today. This bill would make these people deportable without even 
requiring that they be convicted of a crime.
  Do we really want to be deporting lawful, permanent residents without 
due process and without them having their day in court?
  Additionally, if this bill were to become law, it would result in 
absurd consequences. It would actually be easier to deport someone for 
offenses related to Social Security fraud than it is to deport someone 
for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, 
a conviction is required. Is this really what my Republican colleagues 
are looking to accomplish?
  For years, Republicans have claimed that they support legal 
immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, as we all are, 
but they support legal immigration, so they say.
  By stripping people of their due process and playing political games 
with this bill, they are showing us that it is all just empty rhetoric.
  We should be working together in a bipartisan way to modernize our 
broken immigration system. Instead, we are wasting our time with a bill 
that has no chance to become law and does nothing to address the real 
problems facing this country and that destroys due process for legal 
permanent residents.
  Members should oppose this overbroad legislation that would deport 
people who have never even been charged with a crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Democrats today seem to be more concerned with the due process rights 
of illegal aliens than with the fact that those illegal aliens may be 
victimizing hardworking Americans. However, the Democrats' concerns are 
invalid.
  For 80 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals has provided 
additional protections for aliens whose removability or inadmissibility 
is based on an admission. Under BIA precedent, to be considered an 
admission, an alien's admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and 
unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then bears the burden 
to show by clear and convincing evidence that the statement meets that 
requirement for removability purposes.
  Even then, the immigration judge would have to find that the 
admission

[[Page H335]]

fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on 
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. The statutes cited in 
this bill have clear elements and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It 
should not be so difficult to remove aliens who commit Social Security 
fraud or identification document fraud.
  Democrats' fearmongering contradicts the law, contravenes the text of 
the bill, and undermines efforts to ensure that illegal alien 
fraudsters can be removed from the United States.
  H.R. 6678 simplifies the process for ensuring foreign nationals who 
defraud Americans while guests in our country can be removed from the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz says that the person to be 
deported has to be shown to have been guilty by clear and convincing 
evidence. I always thought the standard of proof for a crime was 
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This just shows again how 
destructive of due process this bill is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal) the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6678. 
Instead of putting forward real solutions to fix the immigration 
system, my Republican colleagues are once again looking for a way to 
scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants.
  We have had no hearing or testimony in the Judiciary Committee this 
Congress where Social Security fraud amongst immigrants has been 
identified as a problem that even needs fixing. What we did hear 
instead was about how immigrants are engines of growth for this country 
and how they often pay billions into Social Security, even though they 
are not eligible for benefits from the program. We discussed how in 
2019 alone, undocumented Mexican workers contributed $14.5 billion to 
Social Security and Medicare through the taxes taken out of their 
paychecks.
  Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues have put forth a bill 
that is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. Under current law, 
Social Security fraud already makes a person deportable, but we require 
a conviction. This bill sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a person 
to be deported with absolutely no due process whatsoever.
  Let me start by going through how this bill is not needed. Under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, one of the many ways that someone can 
become deportable is if they are convicted of something called a crime 
involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of 1 year or longer may 
be imposed. The Social Security-related offenses in this bill carry 
maximum penalties between 1 and 30 years, which clearly meet the 1-year 
minimum required for deportability.
  Likewise, the offense of falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, or 
altering a document that can be used as evidence of authorized stay or 
employment in the United States is specifically defined as aggravated 
felony if the crime carries a sentence of 1 year or more. Conviction 
for an aggravated felony makes a person deportable. None of these facts 
seem to matter to the authors of this bill, my Republican colleagues.
  H.R. 6678, however, sets a very difficult and dangerous precedent by 
eliminating the requirement that we first charge and convict a person 
for Social Security fraud before deporting them. This is not consistent 
with current immigration law, and most importantly, it violates the 
bedrock principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law.
  Now, my Republican colleagues seem to say that they don't care about 
due process for all people, but we do.
  By not requiring a conviction, H.R. 6678 would vastly expand the ways 
in which a green card holder could become deportable, and it would lead 
to serious unintended consequences. With minor exceptions, the criminal 
grounds for deportation under the INA require a conviction to make a 
noncitizen deportable. That is just basic fairness.
  Can you imagine a world in which you can simply be ejected from the 
country that you have lived in for decades without ever being convicted 
of a crime or separated from your family without ever being charged? 
That is not who we are as a country.
  Due process needs to apply to everyone. We are better than this.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will realize how absurd and 
shortsighted this bill is and will instead get to work with us on 
finding real solutions to fix our immigration system instead of 
constantly targeting immigrants through xenophobia, racism, and fear.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6678.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman from Washington suggests that we have not, as 
Republicans, focused on a real solution, and I would draw her attention 
to H.R. 2. Any one of the solutions that people come up with is going 
to be dependent upon our having secured the border first, and for 
anyone to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.
  The solutions that are contained in that bill I hope will make their 
way this direction from the Senate, but I doubt it. I am looking 
forward to seeing whatever comes from that direction. H.R. 2 is a good 
approach to try to resolve what I will call as the initial issue that 
must be addressed.

  The Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act requires that aliens 
be convicted of fraud or admit to such fraud. Contrary to the 
Democrats' talking points, not every ground for inadmissibility and 
removability in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires 
conviction. In fact, the language here is identical to the grounds of 
inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled 
substances offenses under INA 212(a)(2).
  Even for grounds of removability, convictions are not always 
required. For example, an alien can be removed for overstaying their 
visa, violating their nonimmigration status, or condition of entry, 
smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug 
addict, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, or engaging in espionage.
  By requiring at least an admission, this bill conforms to the pattern 
of other grounds of inadmissibility and removability. In a world of 
unsafe streets and far-left prosecutors who may never prosecute these 
offenses or will allow aliens to plead down to crimes that may not make 
them deportable, it makes no sense to strike the provision to require a 
conviction.
  If an alien has admitted to such conduct, why can't the alien's own 
admission be used to show the alien is inadmissible or deportable? 
Democrats want to take illegal aliens at their word when they cross the 
border, even thought they destroy their passports and IDs, yet 
Democrats don't want to take aliens at their word when they admit to 
committing a crime in the United States. This defies common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say I have a poster 
here outlining the benefits that undocumented workers bring to the 
economy with a Social Security card that they will never get benefits 
from.
  You know, I was thinking, why in God's name are we bringing up this 
legislation? What is it about this? What am I missing? And I finally 
figured it out. Why are we going after small businesses in the United 
States? Why are we going after farmers and ranchers in this Nation? Why 
would we be turning over more Federal agents, Federal investigators on 
small businesses?
  Remember, we are not talking about the cash economy because workers 
and people that operate in the cash economy don't need a Social 
Security number. We are talking here about small businesses, employers 
and employees that are trying to do the right thing.
  Under this legislation, we are going to give small businesses a 
choice. You obey the law, fire those employees that are questionable, 
and you go out of business; or you break the law, keep those workers 
that are questionable, and stay in business. Again, employees and small 
businesses.
  One of these employees that is caught with one of these IDs is going

[[Page H336]]

to implicate the small business owner. That is called a conspiracy, 
which is also a major crime.
  California has the fourth largest economy in the world. It is the 
number one ag nation in the country. We export 40 percent of our food 
or ag product. Most of those workers are undocumented. Most of those 
workers that feed us are undocumented.
  So let me get this right. We have a shortage of farmworkers. We are 
trying to bring back manufacturing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, we have a shortage of farmworkers. We have a 
shortage of manufacturing employees. We are trying to bring back jobs 
from China, and we are saying to the small businesses, to the farmers, 
you can't hire these people. If you do, you are a criminal, and you are 
going to jail.
  Let's all take a deep breath. Let's give these workers a green card 
so they can work in the U.S. They are honest. If they were dishonest, 
they would be working for cash, but they are trying to do the right 
thing.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the right time for this legislation. I ask 
my colleagues to vote ``no,'' protect small business owners, and 
protect our farmers throughout the country.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to return to my remark earlier and say, look, if we want to 
address issues such as E-Verify and challenges that small employers 
face, the first thing we have to do is secure the border, and the way 
we do that is with H.R. 2. The fact that the Democrats are, 
for whatever reason, ignoring the solutions to securing the border is 
beyond me because in order for us to move into these other areas to 
protect our farmers, our ranchers, and others, we have to secure the 
border first.

  That is a challenge, I think, to those who want the border to be 
open. That is incredibly unfortunate because a huge portion of folks 
certainly in my district and in the United States realize that if we 
don't secure the border, all of this discussion about good and bad is 
moot. We have to secure the border first, and H.R. 2 does that.
  Democrats claim this bill is unnecessary because aliens with fraud 
convictions are already inadmissible or removable. That couldn't be 
further from the truth.
  Although aliens who committed some forms of fraud may be found 
inadmissible to or removable from the United States, many cannot be. In 
fact, in numerous Federal courts of appeal, certain Social Security 
fraud offenses do not carry immigration consequences.
  Take this Ninth Circuit case, for instance: For 19 years, an illegal 
alien used another woman's Social Security number to obtain employment, 
get married twice, and obtain a driver's license, credit cards, and a 
HUD loan.
  When the other woman learned of this fraud, she asked the illegal 
alien to stop using her identity. The illegal alien refused. Yet, the 
Ninth Circuit, doing legal gymnastics, determined that the illegal 
alien's fraud conviction did not carry certain immigration consequences 
because it was not a crime involving moral turpitude.
  Even when courts get it right, it often takes them years to do so.
  In a Fifth Circuit case from 2021, the alien already had been in 
removal proceedings for 6 years before the Federal appeals court 
finally found that his conviction did, in fact, make him inadmissible 
to the United States.
  That is why H.R. 6678 is imperative to protect our communities from 
fraud and ensure aliens who engage in fraud can be more quickly removed 
from the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).
  Mr. MRVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep frustration 
with the unfortunate approach that the House majority is pursuing this 
week with regard to immigration legislation.
  On a personal note, this past week, I held a series of community 
forums throughout Indiana's First Congressional District, and at each 
one, the topic of immigration reform and the challenge of securing our 
southern border was front and center.
  Constituents throughout the region expressed great concern regarding 
the national security implications related to the increase in migrants, 
as well as the great need for increased border security agents, for 
administrative judges, for technology to monitor our border, and for 
the resources to address drug and human trafficking.

                              {time}  1315

  More broadly, there was an appetite to comprehensively solve this 
problem in a bipartisan manner. Further, it requires not only 
government and Federal contractor employers, but all employers to 
utilize the E-Verify system to ensure no labor is being exploited, as 
well as honor our commitment to Dreamers.
  At our community forums, we also discussed the devastating impacts of 
fentanyl, highlighting how our district is home to an international 
port of entry that must be secure.
  In my prior position as a local elected official, I often hosted 
Narcan training sessions. I recollect one such program during a polar 
vortex with 60-degree-below wind chills. More than 150 individuals 
attended that training session because drug traffickers flooded our 
region with fentanyl-laced heroin.
  My office also assisted with burials for many of those who had lost 
the struggle with addiction. I looked into the eyes of family members 
who had lost loved ones, and I carry each one of those memories with 
me. This is real life.
  I pull from these experiences every day for my resolve to move 
forward with real legislative solutions. We are not solving problems by 
debating bills for political advantage when there is a pending 
appropriations supplemental emergency request that would fund an 
additional 1,300 border security agents, amongst other priorities. We 
are not solving problems by debating bills to try and further divide us 
when there is a bipartisan policy solution pending in the Senate that 
regrettably has been declared dead on arrival in the House. This is a 
national security issue, and I am seeking an immigration solution that 
is strong, secure, and humane.
  I implore my colleagues in the majority party to not jeopardize 
innocent lives and the safety of our communities by waiting to address 
this pressing issue until after the election. Let us put those 
solutions up for a vote so the American people can see if we stand for 
results or if we stand for political theater.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Nadler for the time.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democrats want to 
leave the border open and then facilitate the illegal presence of those 
in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in closing. This 
legislation does nothing to improve our immigration system while making 
a mockery of basic due process. That is why it should be defeated.
  I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Democrats' talking points, 
this bill is necessary not only to protect Americans from fraud but 
also to hold aliens accountable for their criminal acts. This bill 
makes America safer. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. D'Esposito

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in House Report 118-362.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 11, strike ``Any alien'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien''.
       Page 1, line 14, insert after ``the essential elements of'' 
     the following ``a covered COVID offense,''.
       Page 2, line 5, insert after ``inadmissible.'' the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Covered covid offense.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `covered COVID offense' means an 
     offense of fraud pertaining to--

       ``(I) a loan made under--

       ``(aa) paragraph (36) or (37) of subsection (a) of section 
     7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636); or

[[Page H337]]

       ``(bb) subsection (b) of such section in response to the 
     COVID-19 pandemic; or

       ``(II) a grant made under--

       ``(aa) section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 
     (15 U.S.C. 9009c); or
       ``(bb) section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small 
     Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (15 U.S.C. 9009a).''.
       Page 2, line 13, insert after ``the essential elements of'' 
     the following: ``a covered COVID offense (as such term is 
     defined in section 212(a)(2)(J)(ii)),''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 980, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative McClintock for 
introducing H.R. 6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act.
  The underlying bill would create a ground of inadmissibility and 
deportation for criminal illegal immigrants who have been convicted of 
Social Security fraud. I am proud to offer this important amendment 
that I hope will go one step further in holding individuals accountable 
for trying to defraud the American government and the American people.
  My amendment expands the bill to ensure that any illegal migrant who 
has been convicted of, or admits to having committed, a crime involving 
fraud in regard to certain COVID-19 loans and grants is also 
inadmissible and deportable.
  Some of the programs included are the Paycheck Protection Program 
loans, Restaurant Revitalization Fund grants, and Shuttered Venue 
Operators Grants. These programs were intended to allow Americans to 
weather the storm through the pandemic, not for illegal immigrants to 
use for their own personal benefit or nefarious purposes.
  During the pandemic, we witnessed beloved small businesses along our 
main streets close and saw many families struggle. Many of these 
important programs ran out of money and were unable to help all those 
who applied. Those who attempted to defraud these programs took 
taxpayer money away from Americans in need and should be penalized.
  In November, the House passed a bipartisan bill to prohibit 
individuals convicted of financial misconduct with respect to these 
same COVID-19 loans from receiving financial assistance from the Small 
Business Administration.
  The SBA Inspector General estimated that more than $200 billion of 
the roughly $1.2 trillion in pandemic loans were distributed to 
potentially fraudulent actors. I want to repeat those numbers. More 
than $200 billion of the roughly $1.2 trillion in pandemic loans were 
distributed to potentially fraudulent actors. That is nearly one-fifth 
of all Small Business Administration funds. We must continue to advance 
legislation that will protect taxpayers' money and penalize those who 
commit fraud, especially those in our country illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this commonsense, pro-American amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  As I have repeatedly said, fraud, regardless of whether it is Social 
Security fraud or fraud related to COVID loans or grants, is a serious 
issue. This amendment, however, suffers from the same defect as the 
underlying bill. As written, it would eliminate the requirement that we 
first charge and convict a person for a fraud offense before we make 
them deportable.
  Let's remember who would be most impacted by the deportability 
provisions in this amendment. This is not about deporting undocumented 
immigrants, who are, of course, already removable. It is not about 
preventing people from entering the United States.
  The deportability provisions in this amendment target lawful 
permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, 
many of whom have U.S. spouses and children. This bill would make these 
people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a 
crime. Do we really want to be deporting lawful permanent residents 
without any due process?
  Additionally, this amendment, just like the underlying bill, would 
lead to absurd consequences. It would actually make it easier to deport 
someone for fraud related to COVID loans or grants than it is to deport 
someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those 
crimes, a conviction is required. Is that really what the author of 
this amendment is trying to accomplish here, make it easier to deport 
people for COVID fraud than for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a 
minor? Is that really what Mr. D'Esposito wants?
  This is not sound policy, and it makes no sense. I hope my 
Republicans colleagues will realize how shortsighted this amendment is. 
I oppose this amendment, and I urge all Members to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I find it almost comical that we are 
being lectured by my friend from New York who was just talking about 
consequences.
  The consequences that we are facing here in this country are actually 
twofold. First, we are facing the consequences of the disastrous open 
borders that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have allowed here 
in the United States of America.
  Secondly, closer to home, when we are talking about murderers and 
rapists, my friend from New York is part of the political party that 
leads New York City, that has rogue DAs who have decided not to hold 
those accountable who have committed crimes.
  We are talking about the State of New York, where the Governor, the 
Assembly, and the State Senate, have put cashless bail and criminal 
justice reform into place that have actually given criminals more 
rights than law-abiding citizens.
  I think, today, what we are focused on is holding those accountable 
who are defrauding the United States of America, people who come to 
this country illegally and have not only committed Social Security 
fraud but also taken money from COVID-19 funding and used it to their 
advantage; therefore, taking it away from good, hardworking Americans 
and businessowners.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from New York has not 
put forward any evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, 
were involved in defrauding the COVID relief funds. Moreover, 
everything he said basically was irrelevant to this bill.

  We are not talking about the southern border crisis. We are not 
talking about the general policies of the Biden administration or the 
Trump administration or H.R. 2 or the Senate bill. All of that is 
beyond the scope of this bill.
  What we are talking about in this bill is not making, as the 
gentleman said, illegal immigrants, but lawful permanent residents, 
deportable for fraud on COVID loans or grants without being convicted 
of a crime, something you cannot do for lawful permanent residents 
accused of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those 
things a conviction is required.
  This bill would set aside due process and say no conviction is 
required to deport someone for the crime of COVID fraud, although such 
a conviction is required for much more serious offenses. It makes no 
sense and it is abhorrent to our legal system to make people have heavy 
penalties, people who have lived in this country for many years, to be 
deportable without any due process and without conviction of a crime.
  For that reason, this amendment and this bill should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. D'Esposito).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H338]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________