[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 18, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2568-H2576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPORTING FRAUDSTERS ACT OF 2026
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I
call up the bill (H.R. 1958) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to clarify that aliens who have been convicted of defrauding the
United States Government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits are
inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1958
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 ``Deporting Fraudsters Act of
2026''.
SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED TO
DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE
UNLAWFUL RECEIPT OF PUBLIC BENEFITS.
(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) Defrauding the united states government or the
unlawful receipt of public benefits.--Any alien who has been
convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits
committing acts which constitute the essential elements of--
``(i) an offense described in section 15 of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2024) (relating to violations
of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits);
``(ii) an offense described in section 208 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to fraud involving
social security account numbers or social security cards);
``(iii) an offense described in section 666 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to theft or bribery concerning
programs receiving Federal funds);
``(iv) an offense described in section 1028 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to fraud and related activity in
connection with identification documents, authentication
features, and information);
``(v) an offense described in section 1031 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to major fraud against the
United States);
``(vi) an offense described under chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to mail fraud and other fraud
offenses);
``(vii) an offense described in section 371 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to conspiracy to commit offense
or to defraud United States);
``(viii) any other offense that involves defrauding the
United States Government or the unlawful receipt of a Federal
public benefit (as such term is defined in section 401(c) of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611) or a State or
local public benefit (as such term is defined in section
411(c) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1621)); or
``(ix) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in
clause (i) through (viii),
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) Defrauding the united states government or the
unlawful receipt of public benefits.--Any alien who has been
convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits
committing acts which constitute the essential elements of--
``(i) an offense described in section 15 of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2024) (relating to violations
of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits);
``(ii) an offense described in section 208 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to fraud involving
social security account numbers or social security cards);
``(iii) an offense described in section 666 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to theft or bribery concerning
programs receiving Federal funds);
``(iv) an offense described in section 1028 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to fraud and related activity in
connection with identification documents, authentication
features, and information);
``(v) an offense described in section 1031 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to major fraud against the
United States);
``(vi) an offense described under chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to mail fraud and other fraud
offenses);
``(vii) an offense described in section 371 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to conspiracy to commit offense
or to defraud United States);
``(viii) any other offense that involves defrauding the
United States Government or the unlawful receipt of a Federal
public benefit (as such term is defined in section 401(c) of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611)) or a State or
local public benefit (as such term is defined in section
411(c) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1621)); or
``(ix) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in
clause (i) through (viii),
is deportable.''.
(c) Ineligibility for Any Immigration Relief.--Any alien
described in subparagraph (J) of section 212(a)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1128(a)(2)(J)) or
subparagraph (G) of section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) shall be ineligible for
any relief under the immigration laws (as such term is
defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101)), including under section 2242 of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (112 Stat. 2681).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
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.
The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1958.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, for years, Republicans on the Committee on the
Judiciary have sounded the alarm about the costs of the Democrats'
open-border policies on our schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, food
banks, law enforcement, and American wages.
What we are now discovering is that many within these populations
immediately set out to rob our country of literally billions of dollars
paid by American taxpayers to help needy Americans.
Worse still, evidence is now emerging from whistleblowers that this
was done while Democratic officials in sanctuary jurisdictions
deliberately turned a blind eye to industrial-scale larceny in exchange
for political support.
We have already heard from TSA agents who watched helplessly as
Somali immigrants brazenly shipped millions of dollars out of this
country in their carry-on luggage while alarms to the Biden-Harris
administration were simply ignored.
We have heard audio recordings of these criminals discussing with
Minnesota's Democratic attorney general how they had each other's
backs. We have heard whistleblowers tell us their warnings to
Minnesota's Governor, resulting in retaliation against them, but no
actions to stop the fraudsters.
One estimate is that the Minnesota scandal accounts for some $9
billion of stolen funds. As investigators begin turning over rocks in
other Democratic sanctuary jurisdictions, like California and New York,
this may prove just the tip of an iceberg of corruption.
There is more. Although this fraud may well end up implicating
thousands of illegal aliens allowed into our country and then protected
from prosecution by the Democrats, Social Security fraud and other
fraud offenses implicate literally millions. Yet, our ability to remove
such fraudsters is hamstrung by the courts, sometimes for decades.
In one case from 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an
alien was not removable from the United States for having committed an
aggravated felony despite the alien's fraud conviction for $169,000 in
food stamps theft.
In another case, an alien was placed in removal proceedings in 2005
while he remained until at least 2013, when his case finally made its
way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine
whether his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in identification
documents made him removable from the United States.
Another fraudster spent 2 years challenging his removal proceedings
even though he admitted that he had received up to $3.5 million through
food stamp fraud.
[[Page H2569]]
Other cases with aliens convicted of wire fraud and food stamp fraud
languished for 1\1/2\ years to 4 years, respectively, before a Federal
court finally upheld their removal orders.
In many other cases, aliens remained eligible to stay in the United
States indefinitely despite their fraud convictions.
The Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, introduced by our colleague,
Dave Taylor, streamlines this removal process. The bill is simple. If
you admit to or are convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits
or committing other fraud offenses, you are out of here on the next
plane and can never return.
This bill also incorporates my Consequences for Social Security Fraud
Act, which the House passed on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago. That
bill simply says that if you are an alien who admits to or is convicted
of Social Security fraud or identification document fraud, you cannot
enter our country. If you are already here, you are to be deported.
That is just common sense.
Even The New York Times reported late last year that as many as 1
million illegal aliens ``are using fraudulent or stolen Social Security
numbers.''
According to another report, in 2017 alone, there were 1.2 million
cases in which illegal aliens used Social Security numbers that
belonged to someone else or that were fabricated. That number surely
has skyrocketed following 4 years of the Biden-Harris border crisis.
A 2022 investigative report found that because of this fraud, victims
``may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or depleted
benefits,'' and may suffer from poor credit histories or even criminal
histories.
That is exactly what happened to Daniel Kluver, a Minnesota man whose
identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal
history and multiple deportations. Because of the identity theft,
Kluver lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased
taxes, and spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of
his stolen identity.
Now, imagine if that victim is you, and the perpetrator is an illegal
alien who is allowed to stay in the United States indefinitely while a
dysfunctional court system takes years to decide whether or not to
deport him. That is absurd.
By specifically listing Federal crimes that make an alien
inadmissible to or removable from the United States, this bill closes
loopholes, removes the yearslong litigation that so often bogs down the
removal process, and strengthens our immigration system.
Finally, the bill guarantees that the fraudsters described in this
bill cannot exploit Americans' generosity again by receiving any
immigration relief in this country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, another week, another redundant and completely
unnecessary immigration crime bill. This one purports to make the
commission of certain fraud offenses into deportable offenses, but
conviction of a fraud offense is already a deportable offense, as the
gentleman's recitation of all the cases involving people who were
convicted of a crime and then deported and removed from the country
demonstrates.
Fraud is considered a crime involving moral turpitude and a
specifically enumerated aggravated felony, the conviction of either of
which subjects any immigrant to deportation and removal from the
country.
In the past, we have heard our colleagues claim these bills are
necessary to resolve an undefined ambiguity in the law, but there is no
ambiguity.
{time} 1330
Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies
fraud as an aggravated felony, which is by definition a deportable
offense. Supreme Court precedent for more than 70 years has treated
fraud as a crime involving moral turpitude and therefore a deportable
and removable offense.
I know that President Trump, who knows a lot about the criminal
justice system, wants to strike a new pose of being tough on fraud. We
still have a First Amendment, so that is his right. But at every turn,
the Trump administration has dismantled the government programs and
offices that actually combat fraud.
At the DOJ, they disbanded key anti-kleptocracy efforts. They
eliminated the Consumer Protection Branch that prosecuted corporate
fraud. They gutted core anticorruption units like the Public Integrity
Section and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. As all of America
knows, they have completely ravaged and shut down the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, the first and only agency devoted solely
at the Federal level to protect American consumers against being
cheated by scammers and fraudsters and big corporations.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau delivered $21 billion back
to more than 200 million Americans who were victims of fraud, scams,
and other predatory business practices, and the administration has been
gutting it because they are soft on corporate fraud and white-collar
crime. That is the reality of what is going on here.
Hell-bent on meeting Stephen Miller's arbitrary mass deportation
monthly quotas, this administration has directed FBI agents to
deprioritize white-collar crime and instead devote their time to the
big immigration roundup, whose beautiful results we can see in the
nightmare of Minneapolis, where American citizens were shot down for
exercising their constitutional rights.
As a result, prosecutions of white-collar crimes, which include a
variety of fraud offenses, were down more than 10 percent in the Trump
administration in 2025.
If that weren't enough, ICE is interfering with States' abilities to
successfully prosecute crimes, like fraud and theft, and to ensure that
perpetrators pay their fines and make restitution to their victims. Why
is that? Well, they are deporting people before they can actually be
tried and fined and before the fines are paid.
Take the case of Jeson Nelon Flores. He was accused of stealing $100
million worth of diamonds. Before his trial was set to take place, ICE
swooped in and simply deported him before trial. That meant he served
no jail time and was never ordered to pay any restitution to his
victims, leaving them with lots of questions about where the $100
million of diamonds are but no justice.
By bypassing the conviction requirement, this legislation would hand
a literal get-out-of-jail-free card to immigrants who commit fraud by
deporting them without going through the criminal justice system and
giving their victims a day in court.
This is part of a broader trend of this administration siding with
the perpetrators against the victims, a trend America has seen in the
administration's shameful decision to cover up for Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators, accomplices, and enablers, while
outing the identities and even the photographs of survivors. It is a
trend that includes the President's outrageous abuse of the pardon
power to let fraudsters, who also happen to be MAGA donors, to purchase
a pardon and skip out on their obligation to pay any fine or
restitution to their victims.
That includes Trevor Milton, who defrauded investors in his company
to the tune of $676 million. Milton and his wife donated $1.8 million
to the President's reelection campaign. In March of last year, Milton
got his pardon, and erased all of the restitution, the hundreds of
millions of dollars he owed to his victims.
Take Lawrence Duran, who was sentenced to the longest prison sentence
in American history for Medicare fraud in September of 2016. He filed
hundreds of thousands of false claims with Medicare, bilking the
taxpayers out of more than $87 million. Then he got his Trump pardon
and skipped away without having to pay any of the fines or the
restitution.
If you can remember one statistic from today, in just 1 year, Donald
Trump's pardons wiped out more than $1.3 billion in restitution and
fines to victims and survivors of fraud and other scams and white-
collar offenses.
This bill is simply another effort to push a fake narrative while
ignoring all of the fraud that engulfs us, which the administration has
tolerated or even approved through these outrageous pardons.
[[Page H2570]]
The administration used fraud as an excuse to send thousands of
masked Federal agents to terrorize the people of Minneapolis and
surrounding areas, a blunder so egregious our colleagues are told not
even to use the phrase ``mass deportation'' anymore because the vast
majority of Americans reject what they saw on the streets of
Minneapolis, agents beating up peaceful protesters and killing them.
American citizens are dying because they dare to exercise their First
Amendment rights and their Second Amendment rights in public.
We saw the price of this authoritarianism. Every day this
administration is pushing lies to try to get the American people to
ignore the reality that is discernible by our own senses. That is the
real fraud on the American people.
Now, they want us to believe that they are combating fraud when they
pardon it, and they wipe out all of the government units that are
designed to ferret out fraud. They started by firing 17 inspectors
general, whose job it is to fight fraud, waste, corruption, and abuse
in the Federal Government. They sacked all of them to make it possible
for the kind of rampant corruption we have seen to take place. The
American people can see what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this redundant, unnecessary,
and distractionary bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend fundamentally misunderstands the provisions of this bill.
There is nothing in this bill that prevents the prosecution and
punishment of an individual for fraud.
In fact, when they admit the fraud, I think that is a plea of guilty.
They can still be prosecuted. They can still be incarcerated. But this
assures at the end of the judicial process and at the end of their
punishment, they be deported.
Remember, the Democrats' sanctuary policies require that criminals in
jail be released back onto our streets rather than be deported. That is
what this bill fixes. They claim it is unnecessary because aliens with
fraud convictions are already inadmissible and removable. That couldn't
be farther from the truth. Although aliens who commit some forms of
fraud may be found deportable, it is far from certain.
Take, for example, a case in which an alien stole an American's
identity for 19 years. Although convicted, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled this wasn't enough to constitute moral turpitude and
therefore was not deportable.
In a Fifth Circuit case from 2021, an alien already had been in
removal proceedings for 6 years before the Federal appeals court
finally found that this made him deportable.
Another fraudster spent 2 years challenging his removal proceedings,
even though he had admitted that he had received some $3.5 million
through food stamp fraud.
These criminal aliens should have been out of this country once they
had served their sentences, and that is why H.R. 1958 is imperative.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, nothing angers a law-abiding American more than being
stolen from and then watching the system let the thief go to do it over
and over again.
Our immigration system only works when people who come here follow
our laws and want to build the American Dream, not strip it away from
the very people who make this country work.
{time} 1340
Right now that trust is broken. These are not small scams. They are
organized, deliberate fraud schemes that target the most vulnerable
among us: a single mother relying on food assistance or an elderly
couple who spent a lifetime paying into Social Security, or a child
whose identity is stolen before they can even speak.
Here is the part that makes no sense. Under current law, defrauding
the U.S. or stealing taxpayer dollars is not explicitly a deportable
offense. That loophole has allowed criminal fraud networks to operate
for decades.
We have seen the consequences. In Minnesota, Somali fraud networks
stole millions, and Federal prosecutors now estimate Medicaid fraud in
that State alone could hit $9 billion. Even in my own home State of
Arizona, fraud exceeds billions of dollars.
However, Minnesota isn't the outlier. It is the warning sign. A GAO
report found nearly 3 million Social Security numbers with evidence of
misuse. A Cuban national defrauded Medicare of more than $3 million
through a fake medical equipment scheme. A 3-year-old child had her
Social Security number used to take out credit cards and auto loans.
These are not isolated cases.
Fraudsters can exploit SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, and other
programs because the law does not clearly state that these crimes make
an alien removable from the U.S. Litigation delays and loopholes let
these offenders stay here and continue to harm Americans while their
victims struggle to recover.
The Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026 closes that gap, and it does it
with simple, commonsense steps. It makes clear that any alien who
defrauds the U.S. or steals government funds intended for American
citizens is inadmissible and deportable. It ensures that an alien's own
admission to committing fraud can trigger consequences because courts
in multiple circuits have ruled that certain Social Security fraud
offenses do not automatically carry immigration penalties. It bars
these offenders from receiving immigration benefits, including asylum,
so they cannot exploit our generosity twice.
This is not complicated. If a person comes to this country to build a
life, then follow our laws and contribute. We will welcome that person.
If a person comes here to steal from American taxpayers, that person
doesn't get to stay.
Becoming an American is a privilege. It carries responsibilities, and
when someone abuses that privilege by stealing from the very people who
welcome them, then they forfeit the right to remain here.
This act is a commonsense reform that protects vulnerable Americans.
I am proud and pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill.
Now I will just touch on the Biden pardons. Literally hundreds of
millions of restitution dollars forgone. In fact, one individual, Paul
Daugerdas, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a
multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by prosecutors as one of
the largest criminal tax fraud cases in U.S. history.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why do I bring that up?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bean of Florida). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is because my friend across the
aisle is obsessed with this Trump derangement syndrome that we hear
about so much.
What about the 1,400 people who were pardoned in the last waning
hours of the Biden administration?
Many of them were fraudsters. Hundreds of millions of dollars in
restitution is forgone. I didn't hear any outrage from the gentleman
over that, but there should be outrage when an illegal alien is
committing fraud. This bill will help make them inadmissible and
deportable.
That is what this bill is about. It is not some imaginary or
delusional sophist argument that we are hearing from the other side.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are
not entitled to their own facts. I am afraid that the gentleman owes
former President Biden a major apology for what he just said.
He said that hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution owed by
people whom Joe Biden pardoned was forgiven. According to a study by
the Cato Institute, which the gentleman can look up, all of the fines
and restitution forgiven by Joe Biden was $680,000, not even $1
million; whereas, Donald Trump has forgiven $1.3 billion in fines and
restitution owed by the fraudsters and conmen and white-collar
criminals whom he has pardoned since
[[Page H2571]]
he got back into office under their pay-to-play pardon operation they
have got going over there right now. That is the reality and the fact.
That is the truth of the matter.
No, Joe Biden did not forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in
fines. What Donald Trump has done is utterly aberrational in American
history.
I see the gentleman is fleeing the Chamber right now rather than
dealing with the facts and the reality of it.
The gentleman was completely wrong.
The gentleman was fleeing the Chamber rather than deal with the
reality that he was absolutely wrong when he accused President Biden of
forgiving hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and restitution to
people he pardoned. It never happened.
It was less than $1 million. It was $680,000.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit the Cato Institute report for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to be contradicted if there are any facts
over on that side of the aisle. If anybody wants to traffic in facts--
but, no, maybe it is more imaginary and delusional sophistry from the
gentleman.
Does he have any facts?
It is no problem just saying: I made a mistake.
It is like Secretary Noem calling Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist,
calling Renee Good a domestic terrorist. That was a terrible mistake
and a blunder, but she couldn't admit it.
Will the gentleman admit that he was wrong about that or does he have
facts?
I don't know. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there might be some way
of determining whether there are any facts available to contradict me
on this, but the study that I have shows that all of Joe Biden's
pardons result in less than $1 million in fines and restitution to be
forgiven.
Mr. Speaker, do you know why that is?
It is because up until President Trump, every other President had
demanded ordinarily as a matter of course that fines be paid and
restitution be paid.
I hope that there are some people on the other side of the aisle--
they have got a huge staff of hundreds of people, can somebody find a
fact that would contradict what I have just said.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee
of Immigration Integrity.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1958.
This bill was inspired by the allegations of fraud in Minnesota that
a conservative YouTuber claims to have discovered, and it is part and
parcel of the Trump administration's deadly assault on Minnesota.
The Trump administration used these fraud allegations to surge
thousands of lawless ICE and Border Patrol agents into Minnesota who
used increasingly violent tactics to terrorize communities, to kidnap
people off the streets, to break into homes without a warrant, to
deploy chemical weapons, and to assault anyone who dared to peacefully
and lawfully protest, observe, or record their activities.
We can never forget that ICE's lawless actions resulted in the
killings of two U.S. citizens. Renee Good, a mother of three, had just
dropped one of her three children off at school and stopped to support
her neighbors when an ICE agent shot her not once, not twice, but three
times at point blank range and killed her.
Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, tried to help a peaceful observer whom
Federal agents had shoved to the ground when several agents attacked
him, wrestled him to the ground, and, Mr. Speaker, shot him 10 times.
The harm that the Trump administration inflicted on Minnesota has
resulted in generational trauma on people of all statuses, all in the
name of so-called fraud. However, this was never about fraud. We know
that because the Department of Justice under President Biden began
investigating these crimes back in 2022. Likewise, the bill before us
today it is not really about fraud either.
Current law already allows people to be deported for committing
fraud. Individuals can become deportable if they are convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or CIMT, for which a sentence of 1
year or longer may be imposed. The fraud offenses in this bill carry
maximum penalties between 1 and 30 years, which clearly meet the 1-year
minimum required for deportability.
Additionally, multiple fraud offenses are specifically defined as
aggravated felonies, if the crime carries a sentence of 1 year or more.
Conviction or an aggravated felony makes a person deportable, but the
key word here, Mr. Speaker, is ``conviction.''
This bill is really about stripping due process and making it easier
to deport immigrants with lawful status, like green card holders. Under
this bill, a green card holder who has been in this country for decades
could be deported without a conviction. Under current law, most
deportability grounds require a person to be convicted of a crime.
As a result, if this bill were to become law, it would be easier to
deport someone for fraud offenses than it would be to deport them for
murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor.
We should all ask ourselves: Why are Republicans again trying to
deport people who came here legally without requiring a criminal
conviction and without any due process?
Why are they constantly trying to fearmonger Americans into thinking
that fraud among immigrants is a giant problem?
Could it be, Mr. Speaker, to distract from the mega corporations that
are bankrolling Republican campaigns, getting Republican tax cuts, all
while screwing working Americans and spiking prices?
At a time when DHS agents are killing, arresting, and unlawfully
entering the homes of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike, when the
Department of Homeland Security is defying court orders, violating
constitutional rights, and unleashing violence and chaos in cities
across the country, the Republican response is to hand this out-of-
control agency yet even more power.
This is another bill that is straight out of the Republican playbook
that we have seen over and over again. It is an attack on two things
that have been a core part of America since day one: immigration and
due process. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
{time} 1350
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Washington objects to the provision that
says if an alien admits to fraud, that should be enough to deport them.
They demand a criminal conviction. How ironic that the Democrats are
quick to take an alien's word when he illegally enters the country,
gives a fake name, and claims asylum, but they can't take his word when
he admits to committing crimes in the United States.
An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. That ought to be
enough to trigger the provisions of this law, and this is not even
breaking new ground. In fact, the language in this bill is identical to
the grounds for inadmissibility for a multitude of circumstances.
An alien can be removed for overstaying his visa, violating his
nonimmigrant status or a condition of entry, smuggling aliens,
committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug addict, falsely
claiming U.S. citizenship, or engaging in espionage, all without a
conviction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to respond, but I am
going to have to respond here. I am going to first include in the
Record: ``Biden clemency for committed fraudsters met with outrage:
`Slap in the face.' ''
[From FoxNews.com, Dec. 17, 2024]
Biden Clemency for Convicted Fraudsters met With Outrage: `Slap in the
Face'
(By Breanne Deppisch, Alec Schemmel)
President Biden made history last week when he granted
clemency to more than 1,500 people with a sweeping list of
commutations and pardons.
However, the move was met with fierce backlash from critics
pointing out various names on the clemency list included
individuals who cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars
through their fraudulent actions.
Among those covered in what the Biden White House is
calling the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S.
president was Rita Crundwell, a former comptroller in Dixon,
Illinois. Crundwell was convicted and sentenced to nearly 20
years behind bars for
[[Page H2572]]
using her position to steal nearly $54 million from the small
town best known for the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan.
Also on the list was former New York law partner Paul M.
Daugerdas, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his
role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by
prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in
U.S. history, as well as Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his
position as a caretaker for patients with severe mental
deficiencies and physical disabilities by using their
personal information to file fraudulent tax returns.
In response to Biden's decision to grant clemency to
Crundwell, Republican Illinois state Sen. Andrew Chesney
called the move ``nothing short of a slap in the face to the
people of Dixon.''
``Her crimes did not only affect the taxpayers of Dixon,
but they also had a rippling effect across the region and
state, as communities became subject to stricter, more
tedious regulations,'' Chesney said in a statement following
the commutation of Crundwell's sentence. ``First, it was the
pardoning of his son, and now Biden is apparently extending
clemency to anyone with political connections, including
corrupt government employees. It's sickening.''
Illinois Republican Rep. Darin LaHood echoed Chesney's
remarks about the commutation being a ``slap in the face'' to
those impacted by Crundwell's crime, adding that ``while many
families in Dixon were living paycheck to paycheck,
[Crundwell] took advantage of their trust in government and
used her access to live an unearned life of luxury.''
In addition to schemes that defrauded public funds, many of
the commutations Biden handed out went to white-collar
criminals accused of defrauding their clients out of millions
of dollars. Meanwhile, Biden also commuted the sentence of
Michael Conahan, a former judge who imposed harsh sentences
against juveniles in exchange for $2.8 million in illegal
payments in what became known as a ``kids for cash'' scandal.
``I want to see [Conahan's] name removed because that's
just . . . another slap in the face, another injustice, on
top of all of the grief that everybody in this community has
already endured,'' said Sandy Fonzo, whose son Edward
committed suicide after being sent to a juvenile detention
center for eight months after getting caught drinking
underage.
The administration commuted sentences for inmates who were
on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who
``have successfully reintegrated into their families and
communities,'' according to the announcement.
This includes verification that the person's primary or a
prior offense was not violent, a sex offense, or terrorism-
related; ensured a low or minimum recidivism risk; and
confirmed that the person was not engaged in violent or gang-
related activity while incarcerated. All were on good
behavior, and the decisions were not made on an individual
basis.
Between 2017 and 2021, then-President Trump granted just
143 pardons and 93 sentence commutations--amounting to just 2
percent of the clemency applications that his administration
received, according to available Justice Department data.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman would have us
believe is that Rita Crundwell, who stole $54 million from Dixon,
Illinois, repaid that $54 million before she received her pardon. That
is what we would have to believe.
We would have to believe that Paul M. Daugerdas, sentenced to 15
years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme,
one of the largest in history, had reimbursed the Federal Government
for those multibillion dollars.
We would have to believe that Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his
position as a caretaker for patients by filing fraudulent tax returns
on behalf of these poor folks, paid everything back.
There is no indication of that from the Dixon, Illinois, folks. No
indication at all.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my case.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
That was an amazing evasion of what we are really talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Cato Institute study,
``President Trump's Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches.''
[From the Cato Institute Blog, Feb. 11, 2026]
President Trump's Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches
(By Dan Greenberg)
Yesterday, I described the final scandal of the Clinton
administration: Bill Clinton's midnight pardon of Marc Rich.
If the Rich pardon was a snowflake, then the pardons of
President Trump's second term are a blizzard.
The scope and magnitude of Trump's second-term pardons are
unprecedented. Joe Biden granted 80 pardons in his four-year
term, but Trump's pardons make his predecessor's look like a
drop in the bucket. In the first year of the second Trump
administration, the president issued 166 individual pardons,
as well as a mass pardon that erased the verdicts of more
than 1,500 January 6 Capitol rioters. In other words, even
putting aside the rioters' collective pardon, Trump is now
issuing pardons at eight times the rate Biden did.
Nonetheless, the fact that a president issues more pardons
than his predecessors is not necessarily problematic. The
real problem lies in the great number of particular second-
term pardons that appear indefensible. Such pardons fall into
five categories.
First: Biden's pardons eliminated roughly $680,000 in
financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures)
owed to victims or the government. In contrast, Liz Oyer, the
former lead pardon attorney of the United States, has
calculated that Trump's second-term pardons have forgiven
criminal debts of more than $1.5 billion. This staggering
sum--composed of money owed to crime victims and to
government treasuries--has been zeroed out by presidential
edict.
Trump's pardon pen was a boon to ex-criminals like Trevor
Milton (who no longer must repay the investors he defrauded
$660 million) and Lawrence Duran (who no longer must repay
the government he defrauded $87 million). It was also a boon
to HDR Global Trading Ltd., which owed the nation a $100
million fine; in this case, Trump also made history by
granting the nation's very first pardon to a corporation.
Second: Trump has normalized the pardoning of disgraced
politicians, such as former Honduran president Juan Orlando
Hernandez (who orchestrated a spree of state-sponsored drug
trafficking leading to a 45-year prison term), Nevada
legislator Michele Fiore (who embezzled $70,000 out of a
police memorial fund for personal expenses like rent and
plastic surgery), Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins (who handed
out badges to untrained businessmen in exchange for $75,000
in bribes), and Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada (who
defrauded state government with a fake-payee kickback
scheme). Perhaps I should disclose my proximity to one such
pardon recipient, Arkansas legislator Jeremy Hutchinson (who
traded official acts for bribes, embezzled from campaign
funds, and filed false tax returns); Hutchinson's tenure in
the state Senate, which ended with simultaneous indictments
in three federal districts, began when he defeated me in a
Republican primary.
Third: Trump's pardons are beginning to undermine the
contemporaneous work of his own Department of Justice. Alina
Habba, Trump's own US attorney in New Jersey, announced
Joseph Schwartz's three-year sentence for $38 million in tax
fraud in April; Trump pardoned him seven months later. Real
estate developer Timothy Leiweke was charged earlier this
year with conspiring to rig the bidding process for a Texas
sports arena; Trump pardoned him in December. Federal
investigators and prosecutors must find such pardons
demoralizing and self-negating.
Fourth: [REDACTED] For instance, the ordinary vetting
procedures of the Office of the Pardon Attorney have often
been sidestepped. Formality in pardon deliberation is
desirable because it immunizes the president from the
appearance of pay-to-play; the absence of such formality
makes it plausible that a multitude of recent pardons are
transactional. Trump pardoned Paul Walczak (who evaded
millions of dollars in taxes) after Walczak's mother raised
millions of dollars for MAGA candidates and paid a million
dollars to dine with the president at Mar-a-Lago. Trevor
Milton--the securities fraudster mentioned above--donated
$1.8 million to Trump's campaign before a presidential pardon
wiped out all $660 million of his restitution obligations.
(That is, if nothing else, an impressive ROI.)
Before Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao--who headed the
cryptocurrency exchange Binance while it fostered more than
1.5 million illegal virtual trades as well as prohibited
transactions to Al Qaeda, Isis, and Hamas--Zhao had brokered
a $2 billion investment in Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s
cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial. (When asked
about Zhao in a subsequent 60 Minutes interview, Trump
explained, ``I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was
a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of
a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden
administration.''
[REDACTED] Trump evidently hoped Cuellar would return the
favor by switching parties to the GOP; when that didn't
happen, the president released an angry statement on Truth
Social, criticizing Cuellar for ``Such a lack of LOYALTY,
something that Texas Voters, and Henry's daughters, will not
like. Oh well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!'' Previous
presidents would surely take offense at the suggestion that a
pardon could be traded for something of value; [REDACTED]
Fifth: Here is another occasion for alarm bells: Donald
Trump has increasingly focused on providing pardons to his
campaign supporters who stretched or broke the law, such as
John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Jenna Ellis. (As the
president's pardon attorney, Ed Martin, famously explained on
X, ``No MAGA left behind.'') Indeed, Trump apparently views
the exercise of his pardon authority to forgive federal
crimes as insufficient; Trump's inability to eliminate state-
level convictions has apparently led him to pressure state
government officials to pardon state-level offenses related
to the 2020 elections.
[[Page H2573]]
I am not the only Cato analyst who has explained the risks
of political and constitutional crisis created by
presidential attempts to get state-level election criminals
pardoned; normalizing such actions will inevitably create
ripple effects in future elections. Historically, the central
principle of the Justice Department's role in elections has
been ``prosecution, not intervention.'' The latest edition of
the DOJ's governing manual in this sphere, Federal
Prosecution of Election Offenses, explains that the states
have primary responsibility for overseeing elections--and
that any federal investigation of elections must minimize the
likelihood of affecting that election or otherwise ``chill
legitimate voting activities.''
That edition of the manual has disappeared from Justice's
website. Bob Bauer, Obama's former White House counsel, has
speculated that the manual is being revised to match Trump's
goal of ``nationalization'' of election administration.
The Supreme Court has explained that pardons are justified
if ``the public welfare will be better served.'' It is
impossible to see how the public welfare is served by many of
Trump's pardons today. The president's power to pardon
federal crimes is practically absolute. It cannot be modified
by Congress. Furthermore, just as an uninvolved citizen lacks
standing to challenge a prosecutor's actions, a third party
likewise may not challenge the grant of a presidential
pardon. [REDACTED] It looks like the floodgates will remain
open for the foreseeable future. Perhaps future presidents
will behave better; perhaps a future constitutional amendment
will encourage them to do so.
At least the specter of corruption in previous presidential
administrations (Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, or Biden's
pardon of his son) appeared to be an exception to the rule.
[REDACTED]
Mr. RASKIN. In it, it answers the question between the gentleman and
me. I thought that I was submitting a very simple, humble request, that
he withdraw the false statement that Joe Biden, as President, had
forgiven hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and restitution. That
is an absolute falsehood. It is inaccurate.
Now, look, let's start with this: I am going to educate the gentleman
to the extent that he wants to be educated any further on the matter
about the difference between pardons in the Biden administration and
the Trump administration.
Joe Biden granted a total of 80 pardons in his 4-year term. President
Trump issued 166 individual pardons in his first year and then, of
course, famously, the mass pardon of 1,500 January 6 rioters and
insurrectionists who stormed this Chamber and the Capitol.
I am quoting directly from the Cato study, for the benefit of the
gentleman from Arizona: ``Biden's pardons eliminated roughly $680,000
in financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures) owed to
victims or the government.''
This is money that a court has determined is owed and must be paid.
Biden forgave $680,000. Now, I am sure that if you are one of the
victims, you are not happy to hear about that, that that was forgiven,
but that is within the power of the President.
``In contrast, Liz Oyer, the former lead pardon attorney of the
United States, has calculated that Trump's second-term pardons''--that
is just 1 year of pardons--``have forgiven criminal debts''--fines,
restitution, and forfeitures--``of more than $1.5 billion.''
In other words, Biden didn't even forgive $1 million. President Trump
has forgiven more than $1.5 billion to the fraudsters, white-collar
criminals, and scammers who have found their way to Mar-a-Lago and the
White House and have been able to finagle the pardon that they always
wanted.
``This staggering sum,'' as the Cato Institute puts it, ``has been
zeroed out by Presidential edict.''
That is in a completely different galaxy than what President Biden or
any other President, Democrat or Republican, has done in American
history. It is stratospheric.
I am glad that the gentleman's blatant misstatement and his refusal
to retract it have given us the opportunity to focus on this
extraordinary corruption that is taking place because it tells the true
story of fraud and how fraud is being treated by the current
administration.
Cato says to consider the case of Trevor Milton, ``who no longer must
repay the investors he defrauded $660 million'' that he owed them. Take
the case of Lawrence Duran, ``who no longer must repay the government
he defrauded $87 million.''
You can add up all the people who were pardoned by President Biden,
and you don't even get to $1 million. Then, you have individual
criminals whom Donald Trump pardoned after they made various kinds of
overtures to the White House or showed up at Mar-a-Lago, and those
people were getting hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of millions
of dollars forgiven in fines.
The gentleman got back up to say these people were either convicted
for or accused of tens of millions of dollars in fraud under President
Biden. I am talking about what a court ordered them to pay. That is the
apples-to-apples comparison that the gentleman doesn't want to deal
with.
It is interesting that he happened upon that particular issue because
it is not one that benefits their side of the argument at all, as they
claim to be interested in saving the victims of fraud.
Victims of fraud, thousands of them, have lost more than a billion
dollars because of the pardons of Donald Trump. That is the direct
policy of the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can't blame the ranking member for digressing into his
Trump derangement syndrome. That is a lot easier, I suspect, than
explaining why Democrats believe that aliens who have defrauded
American taxpayers and stolen people's identities should remain in our
country. That is their sanctuary policy in a nutshell. I wouldn't want
to try to defend that either.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have a massive fraud
problem in America. Fraud costs our country an estimated $233 billion
to $521 billion each year.
Just recently, in Minnesota, allegations have been brought against a
group of Somali immigrants running fraudulent daycares with American
tax dollars.
The bill we are considering today, the Deporting Fraudsters Act,
ensures that aliens who commit acts of fraud or fraudulently receive
public benefits face the consequences of their actions. This creates
grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for any alien who admits
to or is convicted of certain fraud offenses.
The worst part of the Minnesota case, we all know, was the actions of
lawmakers who decided they would rather cover it up than see the
perpetrators brought to justice. Unfortunately, I think we will see
that same behavior today with this vote.
Time and time again, we have seen our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle refuse to prioritize American citizens over aliens.
Let me remind all Americans: We just saw an example of this recently
at the State of the Union Address when President Trump asked us to
stand if we believed the most important priority of the Federal
Government is to protect American citizens, and all of America watched
as Democrats refused to stand. The American people saw a party that is
unable to put their interests first.
Living in America as a noncitizen is a privilege, and when people
abuse that privilege, they must be held responsible. We must be a
nation that follows the rule of law. We must punish illegal aliens who
are misusing taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
put American citizens above alien fraudsters and vote ``yes'' on this
bill.
{time} 1400
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues jump up like a jack-in-the-box
whenever the President tells them to do that. Others in the Chamber
want to stand up for American citizens exercising their First and
Second Amendment rights, like Alex Pretti and Renee Good. They were
shot down by ICE agents, who somehow believed that, with this Trump
administration, they are above the law and beyond the law.
We are going to stand up with the American people. We are not going
to take orders from the executive branch, which is utterly humiliating
and self-defeating for a Member of the Article I
[[Page H2574]]
branch of the Congress of the United States.
The gentleman, I think, accuses us of something he called the
deranged Trump syndrome, which I can only imagine means following a
President who plunges the country into an illegal, unauthorized,
undeclared war, spending $1 billion or $2 billion a day, and then not
asking any questions about it because somehow you think your political
destiny is intertwined with the President, who has shown no loyalty to
the people who show loyalty to him. That is a personal problem on their
part. We don't have deranged Trump syndrome. I think that falls on that
side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's just step back and understand the Democrats'
position for a second.
First, they were for a wide-open border. You don't have to take my
word for it, just remember what we saw. Every single day for 4 years of
the Biden administration, people were lining up on the southern border,
camping out under the bridges in the various towns along the border, 8
million to 10 million people in a 4-year timeframe.
They were all fine with that. They lost track of 300,000 kids during
that time.
Then, another position they were for was to abolish ICE. They don't
want to enforce our immigration laws. No. We have to abolish ICE. Being
doxed, tracked, harassed, spit on, sworn at, and attacked, and making
death threats on ICE agents and their families, as if that wasn't
enough, now the Democrats say we want to get rid of them altogether.
That is really going to help the situation in our country.
Third, they are for sanctuary jurisdictions. We just passed
legislation in our committee 2 weeks ago to deal with this in 18
cities, 11 States, 3 counties, the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker,
31\1/2\ percent of the population of this country resides in a
jurisdiction where leftwing political leaders tell local law
enforcement not to work with Federal law enforcement when it comes to
enforcing Federal law. That is maybe one of the dumbest things I have
ever heard, but that is their position.
Guess what. Last year alone, 17,864 times a detainer was filed at the
local jail, local detention center, when an illegal migrant was in that
facility and charged with another crime, and ICE files a detainer and
says: If you are going to let him out, give us a heads-up. Just tell
us. We will come to apprehend the individual there in the jail so we
don't have to do it on the street where our agents are going to be spit
on, harassed, sworn at, and attacked. Just let us do it at the jail.
These jurisdictions said no, and now here we are today.
Mr. Speaker, the final one: If you find some fraudster who is a
naturalized citizen and rips off the taxpayers, you can't deport them.
They are, like, no, we are not going to deport them. We are going to
give them, as the chairman said, sanctuary here in the country.
These are the most ridiculous positions: open border, abolish ICE,
sanctuary jurisdiction, and don't deport fraudsters who are here.
This is craziness, but that is their position, and this bill is so
common sense.
I thank Mr. Taylor for sponsoring this legislation. I think it was
Sarah Huckabee Sanders a few years ago who said in a response to
President Biden that the divide in America today is normal versus
crazy. This is just normal, commonsense stuff. Every position they take
is crazy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Taylor and our chairman, Mr. McClintock, for
the great work they have done on this legislation, and I urge a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is such a thick fog of propaganda and
disinformation in the Chamber that I think we have lost sight of what
the bill is about and what the law is.
The law is very clear today, which is: Conviction of a criminal fraud
offense is already a deportable offense. It already gets you deported.
That is why the majority began with a whole litany of cases where
people were being deported after committing crimes.
They didn't like the fact that they had the right to appeal it. They
don't like the fact that there is due process, but they appealed it.
Then, they were deported. That is what the law is.
Their bill is simply an effort to say you don't need a conviction
anymore. You could just deport them based on hearsay evidence. An ICE
agent says that this person admitted to me that they had committed
fraud, and that substitutes for a prosecution, trial, and conviction by
a jury.
In the meantime, we have hundreds of judges in America who are
condemning ICE for lying in court. We have Department of Justice
lawyers who are saying literally in court that their job sucks because
they can't defend what is taking place with ICE. We have judge after
judge denouncing the fantastical, misleading, deceptive, mendacious
testimony of people from ICE, and now you want to just trust an ICE
agent to say this person admitted to me that they committed criminal
fraud. We are just going to kick them out of the country without a
trial.
Thomas Jefferson said during the Alien and Sedition Acts that there
are people who want to strip away the rights of aliens and who will
inevitably come to attack the rights of citizens, too. We already saw
that in Minneapolis.
There were a lot of people in this Chamber willing to look the other
way when they were knocking down the doors of immigrants without a
search warrant, without probable cause, when they were roughing up
immigrants, or when immigrants were dying in custody. Then, suddenly,
these ICE agents thought they could get away with it when it comes to
U.S. citizens, and that is when America woke up to this threat and said
no.
ICE agents are not superior to the rule of law. They are not above
and beyond the law. Even President Trump understood that, which is why
he has pulled a lot of people out of Minneapolis. They wanted to change
the subject. They said stop using the words ``mass deportation.''
A majority of the American people reject these authoritarian tactics
that have been unleashed against both citizens and immigrants.
This is a nation of laws. It is a nation under the rule of law and
under the Constitution. Their bill is, at best, if not completely
redundant, unnecessary, and silly, a gloss on what the law already is,
which is that if you are convicted of fraud and you are an immigrant,
you get kicked out of the country. You are removed. They want to pick a
fight on a nonsensical problem.
We don't need to degrade our own rule of law by taking action against
people without a criminal conviction. The criminal justice system works
just fine, so we should be encouraging government agents not to lie to
judges, not to render false testimony, as judges across the country
have been saying. Both Republican and Democratic appointees have been
rejecting what is coming out of this administration.
This bill, as far as I know, is not about naturalized citizens. I
think our distinguished chairman said something about that. He may have
gotten it confused with another bill, but this bill is unnecessary and
redundant.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend seems so overwrought that he is simply
misspeaking and doing so quite prolifically.
This bill does not say that you can deport on hearsay evidence. It
says you must deport upon a conviction or an admission of guilt. That
is it, and there are many offenses that already fall under this same
process, and the standards are rigorous.
The alien's admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified.
The immigration judge has to find that the admission fits within the
relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence.
The Democrats clearly aren't interested in due process. They are
interested in gumming up the process so
[[Page H2575]]
that the illegal alien criminals can remain in this country, preying on
Americans.
{time} 1410
Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point of their sanctuary cities and
the whole point of their opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Taylor), the author of this legislation.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Deporting
Fraudsters Act. As Mr. Harris just said earlier, estimates show that
between $233 billion and $521 billion is lost to fraud each year. These
funds are taxpayer dollars from American workers, intended to go to
Americans who need help getting back on their feet, not to illegal
alien fraudsters who shouldn't even be in our country to begin with.
The massive fraud we have seen in Minnesota and other places around
the country should be a no-brainer. If a person is not an American
citizen while defrauding the American people, they should not be able
to walk freely in this country.
The story that inspired this bill originally came from California
where five foreign nationals were apprehended with over 160 fraudulent
SNAP cards on them. These were non-Americans stealing from the most
vulnerable among us. It needs to end.
Democrats have used American taxpayer dollars to attract and retain
an electoral majority for too long. To my Democratic colleagues, the
bill before us is a binary choice. Do they support the American people,
or do they support illegal immigrants who steal American tax dollars?
Failing to support this bill is betraying the Americans whose
interests Democrats claim to represent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, before the distinguished gentleman leaves, I
would be happy to yield to him for an answer to a question.
The bill, as he originally introduced it, required a criminal
conviction. I wonder why it was changed and whether that was changed
with his approval or not. What was the logic for changing it?
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor) for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for the question.
Mr. Speaker, it was not part of the original text. It was suggested
in Committee. This was in the Judiciary Committee. I wasn't a party to
those conversations. I was consulted about the decision to add that,
and I fully supported it.
Mr. RASKIN. Representative Taylor, this is your bill, H.R. 1958. It
begins like this:
``Any alien who has been convicted of an offense that involves
defrauding the United States Government or unlawfully receiving a
Federal public benefit . . . or a State or local public benefit . . .
is deportable.''
You have got the language of ``convicted'' in there. It was changed
by the Committee. I am just wondering: Why did you originally have it
in such a way as to require a conviction?
Mr. TAYLOR. I am not sure I got what you said there. It requires a
conviction unless there is an admission.
Mr. RASKIN. That is the way it has been changed. It has been altered
to that. When you introduced it, it required a conviction. I am just
wondering: What was your original logic, and why did you change your
mind about that, if you did? Maybe you didn't.
Mr. TAYLOR. In looking back at that, it is probably something I
should have included in the original text. If the person is going to
admit it, they probably should be deported, obviously, if they are
admitting it.
It is something that is, honestly, apparently commonly occurring at
the border as people come in.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time.
I supported the original vision. It was basically unnecessary because
it was a restatement of what the law is, to put it all in one place, so
I could certainly support that.
Then your language was completely diluted in committee to open up
this huge, gaping hole to say that you don't need a criminal conviction
before deporting someone. We have enumerated the problems with that.
For one thing, it deprives victims of a crime the opportunity to be
heard and perhaps to get their restitution and to get their proper
justice in court.
Also, it sets a terrible precedent. This is the Thomas Jefferson
point. When we say we are going to have lesser standards relating to
immigrants, that then carries over to citizens. We have seen already in
this huge immigration roundup what that means in terms of the trampling
of the rights of our people under the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, in this situation my read of the bill is an
un-withdrawn admission is the same as a guilty verdict. This is a
person who has admitted they have broken the law. Therefore, they sit
in the same position as someone who has been convicted of it, if they
are not even going to say: Oh, no, actually I didn't break the law.
They admitted it. They are deportable.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking member should know that once the bill is
introduced, it leaves the control of the individual Member and becomes
the property of the House and is subject to modification by a majority
of the House.
I must say I find his objections rather curious, considering the fact
that dozens of House Democrats have supported requiring an admission
for a ground of deportability included as part of the Consequences for
Social Security Fraud Act, which was approved by 55 House Democrats
just 2 years ago. That was legislation that I introduced and is now
incorporated into this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO Cost Estimate for this
bill.
H.R. 1958, DEPORTING FRAUDSTERS ACT OF 2026 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON JANUARY 27, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of
dollars
-----------------------------------
2026 2026-2030 2026-2035
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... * * *
Revenues............................ * * *
Increase or Decrease (-) in the * * *
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation * * *
(Outlays)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between -$500,000 and $500,000.
Increases net direct spending in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? No.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2036? No.
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
Contains private-sector mandate? No.
H.R. 1958 would make an alien (a non-U.S. national)
inadmissible to or deportable from the United States if that
person admits to or is convicted of crimes involving
defrauding the United States government or the unlawful
receipt of a federal, state, or local public benefit.
Under current law, a crime involving fraud can be deemed to
be a crime involving moral turpitude; the admission of or
conviction for such a crime makes an alien inadmissible or,
in certain cases, deportable. Therefore, CBO expects that
only a few peopleiwould be removed from the United States
based solely on enacting this bill. Because some of those
aliens might be eligible for federal benefits--some of which
are provided through income tax credits--CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would decrease spending subject to
appropriation and direct spending and increase revenues by an
insignificant amount over the 2026-2035 period.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is David Rafferty.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this lively debate. This bill
is redundant. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous in terms of eroding a
basic principle that we have, which is that there should be full due
process and people should not be deported without a criminal
conviction. The prosecution is
[[Page H2576]]
not always right, but also everybody should have their day in court,
including the victims.
At a time when we have seen Big Brother bloated beyond belief in
terms of budget and in terms of power, the last thing we should do is
to look for further ways to aggrandize the power of the executive
branch at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the question before us is a simple one. Should an alien
who is here in this country as a guest of America be deported if they
commit fraud and steal the funds of American families and American
taxpayers or if they commit identity theft by stealing the Social
Security numbers of American citizens?
That should not be a difficult question for anyone with a lick of
common sense. We have enough problems with domestic criminals without
tolerating the presence of criminals from every other country in the
world.
If a person is a foreigner and commits fraud in this country, they
need to go home and never be allowed to return. The Democrats want
these criminals to stay. The Republicans want them to go. I don't
wonder for a moment where the American people stand.
President Trump put a very simple and revealing proposition to the
Democrats during his recent State of the Union Address. The first duty
of the American Government is to defend the American people and not
illegal aliens.
The Democrats made their answer crystal clear for the entire world to
see. I am willing to bet they haven't learned a thing since then, but I
am pleased to put that proposition to them today in this form. Should
foreigners who commit fraud against the American people be allowed to
stay in our country, ``yes'' or ``no''?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________