[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.
____________________