Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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.

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. 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. 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. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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. 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. 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. 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 that the illegal alien criminals can remain in this country, preying on Americans. 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. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

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.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, take a good look around you. Everything you see wherever you look, everything that makes your life comfortable, everything that makes your life possible--everything--is either mined, or it is grown. There are no exceptions. Everything you enjoy and depend upon is either mined or grown from the ground. The generation that built our country understood this. Mr. Speaker, over the chair from which you preside is emblazoned the prayer from Daniel Webster, which reads: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' Yet, for 50 years, the environmental left has torn down these great achievements and waged war against everything that is mined or grown. They have piled tax upon tax, restriction upon restriction, and regulation upon regulation that have made mining and agriculture increasingly expensive and needlessly scarce. That is the heart of the affordability crisis. The left has turned abundance into scarcity. Finally, in our day, a new generation is discovering that this self-destructive lunacy is not going to end well. That brings us to this bill to reduce the regulatory burdens that the left has imposed upon our Nation's ability to prosper and advance. It codifies President Trump's executive orders that identify the resources that we can develop and calls forth the powers of prosperity that those resources promise. It restores freedom to meet the challenge that Daniel Webster set before us by realigning our institutions on behalf of the American people so that we too can perform something worthy to be remembered, to make America great again.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, there is much to unpack from the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Above all, there is the stark contrast between the American socialists who are bitterly denouncing the ouster of this socialist dictator and the masses of ordinary Venezuelans celebrating their deliverance from him. Socialism under Chavez and Maduro utterly destroyed the prosperity and freedom of Venezuela, reducing it from one of the wealthiest nations in the world to one of the poorest. Like all socialist regimes, the Chavistas depend on brutal intimidation, terrorism, and violence to maintain their grip on power. A third of the population has now fled that afflicted nation. With Maduro's ouster, this diaspora of socialism's victims finally see a cause for hope, and they are rejoicing in the streets. This should be a warning to our fellow Americans who today are flirting with the same socialist movement in our own country. It has long been foretold that when socialism comes to America, it will come as a smile. Venezuelans are not the first to be seduced by the siren song of a benevolent and all-powerful government. Like every people who have blundered down that road, they awakened one morning to find the benevolence was gone and the all-powerful government was still there. Let that be a lesson to our misguided countrymen. This should also be a warning to our adversaries around the world that the Monroe Doctrine has been revived and that America is again willing and capable of defending the New World from the intrigues of the old. Every thug and despot around the world has new reason to fear the ancient warning: sic semper tyrannis. Mr. Speaker, has the President acted within his inherent authority as Commander in Chief? The Federal courts have already answered that question time and again including the attacks on Libya by Obama and the arrest of Noriega by Bush. They have consistently ruled that these nearly identical precedents were within the prerogatives of the President and that Congress just as consistently has acquiesced. As law professor Jonathan Turley put it: ``If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.'' This is an important debate that goes to the heart of the separation of powers and one that we ought to have. The Constitutional Convention originally considered giving Congress the exclusive power to make war. Elbridge Gerry successfully replaced ``make war'' with ``declare war.'' Madison explained this distinction as ``leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks.'' That distinction has been widened over the centuries, and perhaps it is time to take a fresh look at this question of what distinguishes declaring war from making war. In 1847, Congressman Abraham Lincoln addressed this very point and unsuccessfully argued that once the executive initiates a hostile act against a foreign power, it has, in fact, declared war by giving that power casus belli. He said that reacting to a military attack is one thing, but initiating an attack is quite another. Personally, I think he had a point. I disagree with the current precedents, although I find it hard to fault the President from acting within them. Restoring the many guardrails that separate executive, legislative, and judicial powers in our Constitution would be a fitting way for Congress to celebrate our Nation's 250th anniversary. The Supreme Court is doing its part by restoring the President's exclusive control over executive agencies, and perhaps it will soon restore Congress' exclusive control over tariffs. I certainly hope so. Reasserting Congress' supremacy and the momentous question of war and peace will require a serious and sober discussion in Congress. When I hear the hyperbolic and hyperpartisan rhetoric of the Democrats in this House with their hatred of Donald Trump dripping from every word, I fear that discussion must await calmer times, cooler heads, and wiser voices. In the meantime, let us rejoice in the fruits of this action. They include the removal of the worst despot in the Western Hemisphere; the revival of the Monroe Doctrine; the ejection of malignant powers insinuating themselves into Latin America; the unmistakable warning to tyrants around the world that America is back; the triumph of American arms; and most of all, setting the stage for the return of liberty, justice, and prosperity to the people of Venezuela.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the Romans had a saying: ``Time is fleeting, remember death''; ``Tempus fugit, memento mori.'' It reminds us that life is not a gift. It is just a loan, and when it comes due, all that matters is what we have given to others. Doug LaMalfa was the kindest and most sincere person I have encountered in more than 40 years of public service. He passionately defended the working men and women of the rural community where he was born and raised and grew up, but he always did it with a good-natured smile and a quiet, respectful manner. Just 3 weeks ago, on December 15, I took my seat on an early Washington-bound flight from Sacramento, about eight rows behind Doug. When I looked up, he was standing there in the aisle with an outstretched hand. He leaned over, and he quietly said to me: Tom, I know this is a hard day for you, and I want you to know that my prayers are with you and Lori. You see, that was the fourth anniversary of my dear wife Lori's death, and how he knew that, remembered it, and offered such warm comfort on such a cold morning tells you what a truly caring and wonderful man he was. And now he is gone, for time is fleeting. Yet, death can't take the kindnesses and memories that he gave us all, or the wisdom, common sense, and achievements that he gave our country. Our Nation, our State, and our community have all suffered an irreplaceable loss, and rural America has lost its most tireless and effective advocate. Most of all, we have lost a good man, a very good man. To his family, I can only say that you are not alone in your grief. Your community and your country grieve with you.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, the Constitution is crystal clear that only Congress can start a war. However, in their deliberations on this subject, the Founders also made clear that they were leaving the President certain limited inherent power to react to an attack. For example, he can order up defensive measures or hot pursuit of an enemy or retaliatory strikes. That is the distinction they debated when they substituted ``declare war'' instead of ``make war'' among Congress' enumerated powers. The supporters of this resolution are correct. Congress has to initiate hostilities, but neither of these resolutions are applicable to current events. H. Con. Res. 64 orders the President to remove forces from Venezuela that are not in Venezuela. Until and unless they are, this is at best an empty partisan exercise. Worse, it could be construed to constrain his inherent powers in the event of an attack by Venezuela that requires an immediate response. H. Con. Res. 61 orders him to cease attacks on terrorist groups, presumably the drug runners, but these are unflagged vessels carrying contraband in international waters. An attack on them is not an attack on a foreign power and, therefore, not an act of war. It is akin to firing on Somali pirates menacing international shipping. If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela or Venezuelan-flagged vessels without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think the Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, during the 4 years of the Democrats' open border nightmare, some half million unvetted, unaccompanied minors were trafficked into our country by our own government and left with poorly vetted or unvetted sponsors. The government lost track of 150,000 of them. This is a dark chapter in our history that must always be remembered and never be repeated. So far, despite the vicious and sometimes violent opposition of the Democrats and their Antifa auxiliary, the Trump administration has now rescued 62,000 of these children who had fallen into the underworld of illegal sex and labor trafficking. Many of these unaccompanied alien children weren't children at all. Some were gang members or adults pretending to be minors or both. Since the Biden administration's priority was to traffic as many as possible into our country, they didn't care to check. Biden's HHS Secretary compared the process to an assembly line, and he threatened to fire anyone who slowed it down to ask embarrassing questions like: Is this person with gang tattoos a member of a gang? Are they even a child? Now, this bill is named after Kayla Hamilton. She paid the ultimate price for the Democrats' open borders. She was found in her own bedroom raped, tied up, and then strangled with a phone cord. Her murder was recorded on her boyfriend's voicemail when she desperately called him for help. Kayla was just 20 years old. She was murdered by a 17-year-old MS-13 gang member who Biden's administration welcomed into our country. The police investigating her murder noticed that her assailant had gang tattoos. One call to El Salvadoran authorities confirmed he was a known MS-13 gang member, something that Federal officials never bothered to ask as they recklessly placed him in Kayla's neighborhood. The Trump administration has stopped this madness, thank God, and ICE is now trying to locate every gang member that the Democrats allowed into our country in order to prevent future atrocities. ICE is being blocked every step of the way by the Democrats and their violent street mobs that they have incited and encouraged. But what if another Democrat becomes President? Their leaders all backed these policies. That is why this bill is so desperately needed-- not for future presidents like Trump, pledged and determined to uphold our immigration laws, but for future Democrats who are pledged to undermine or ignore them. If this bill had been law, Biden would have been powerless to unleash these horrors upon our people. This bill requires every unaccompanied alien child to be fully vetted and detained if they are suspected to be criminals or gang members. It also requires every sponsor to be similarly vetted, to prevent the rampant child abuse and trafficking that was aided and abetted by the Biden administration with the support of the Democrats in this Congress. This must never happen again. This bill assures that whoever is President, it cannot happen again.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill at the request of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to transfer 80 acres of BLM land and 185 acres of fee simple land that is already owned by the Tribe into trust as part of their reservation for the purposes of housing. Mr. Speaker, I have always insisted that any transfer of lands from fee simple ownership to Federal trust must have the approval of the local land use management agency that is responsible for this land, since it takes that land off of the tax rolls and out of the agency's jurisdiction. I am pleased to report that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has unanimously endorsed this bill effecting the transfer. This particular tract was approved for residential housing in the past, but the projects never materialized. This land transfer will bring a new neighborhood into the community, providing desperately needed housing to Tribal members. The Tribe already owns this land. It merely seeks the freedom afforded by Federal trust status to bring it to fruition. The transfer of the 80 acres of Federal BLM land should also be a no- brainer. The BLM long ago abandoned this tract to neglect, and it is now densely overgrown and a serious fire hazard for the surrounding communities. Putting this land under the active management of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians assures that good stewardship can be restored to this acreage in perpetuity. The local government did request some restrictions on the use of the land, which the Tribal government has agreed to. The property cannot be used for gaming, nor for commerce beyond what is necessary to support the needs of the new neighborhood. Frankly, I hope that future boards will agree to expand the permissible use of this land. In the meantime, both the Tribal government and the local government have agreed to these restrictions, and they are incorporated into this act. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to tell you about the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians because it is a remarkable tale of resilience, determination, and triumph. The members of this Tribe are the descendants of the Miwok and Southern Maidu people who populated the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Central Valley of California for many thousands of years. Spanish colonization devastated the Native population in the 18th century, and the 19th century gold rush all but obliterated it. By 1913, the entire Native population of California had plummeted from an estimated 310,000 down to just 17,000. In the aftermath, the few surviving members of the Miwok Tribe were allocated 160 acres as a rancheria, but the construction of Highway 50 cut the residents off from easy access and the members dispersed into the surrounding communities. The Indian Reorganization Act breathed new life into the isolated, disbanded descendants, and the members returned and reorganized as the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the only federally recognized Tribe in El Dorado County. They have achieved remarkable success in the years that have followed. This small Tribe, numbering an estimated 500 enrolled members, raised the private money to build an off ramp from Highway 50 to restore access to their rancheria. They used the opportunities afforded under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to construct the Red Hawk Casino. From that success, they have expanded into a hospitality and recreation center for the region, providing employment, commerce, healthcare, and all of the spinoff commercial activity that that means to the surrounding community. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians survived near annihilation during the Spanish colonization and gold rush eras only to become a prosperous and integral part of El Dorado County. I am honored to carry this legislation that will continue their progress and contributions to their posterity and to our community into the years ahead.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 176) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, supported, or otherwise facilitated the attacks against Israel, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 176.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, although our political differences these days are vast, there are still some things we come together on in this body. We certainly did so during the last session. One of them was an enduring opposition to Hamas and the terrorism they unleashed on innocent civilians in Israel more than 2 years ago. Earlier this year, the barbaric inhumanity of Hamas was revealed again in the macabre and infuriating spectacle of returning the bodies to the Bibas family. We last saw Shiri Bibas alive on October 7, 2023, as she was seized, terrified and sobbing, begging for the lives of her two little boys as they were dragged into the hell on Earth that Hamas created. This February, their murdered bodies were treated as trophies, and later we learned in a final act of cruelty that Shiri's body had been substituted for another. We all came together in this body last year and said that such monsters as these must never be admitted into our country, never given safe haven on our soil, and never tolerated where they are found. H.R. 176 says that anyone associated with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic jihad, in any capacity, or anyone who assisted these terrorist activities in any form, will not be allowed in this country under any circumstances, will be immediately removed if we do find them here, and under no circumstances will we allow them to receive any immigration benefit under our laws. We already single out Nazi collaborators and PLO terrorists. This simply adds Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to that list. Madam Speaker, for reasons I find inexplicable, the Senate couldn't be bothered to take up this bill in the last session. They will hopefully find the time in this session. Under current law, being a member of Hamas or associated with its barbaric attack against Israel is not an explicit ground of inadmissibility or removability. That is just not good enough. Anyone who gave them support in any form should never be allowed into this country. During the Biden years, the number of known or suspected terrorists encountered at the Southwest border soared to nearly 400. Too many were allowed into this country. How many more were among the 2 million known gotaways is anybody's guess. How many more are among the 190,000 Afghans allowed into this country with minimal or no vetting is also anybody's guess. We found out last week that one is far too many. Under the Biden administration, Hamas terrorists didn't even have to sneak in across the border. President Biden simply let them in through the front door. As just one example, less than 2 months ago, Federal officials arrested a 33-year-old native of Gaza, who was living in Lafayette, Louisiana, for his alleged involvement in Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. After learning about the ongoing Hamas attack, the alleged terrorists gathered a group of fighters and stormed into Israel to join the barbarism. Less than a year later, he submitted a visa application, which the Biden administration quickly approved, and he was allowed to enter the United States. After the October 7 attacks, Director Wray warned us that the FBI ``cannot, and [does] not, discount the possibility that Hamas . . . could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.'' These words proved to be prophetic. On June 1, 2025, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national, attacked pro-Israeli demonstrators who were marching in Boulder, Colorado, in support of the release of hostages held captive by Hamas. While shouting, ``Free Palestine,'' Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with Molotov cocktails, resulting in the hospitalization of at least eight people who suffered burns and other injuries. At least one of the victims had survived the Holocaust. According to the Justice Department, Soliman stated he planned the attack for more than a year. He ``wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead'' and would conduct the attack again if he had the chance. He, too, was able to enter the United States through the front door, this time with a tourist visa, under the Biden administration. This can never be allowed to happen again, regardless of which party controls the executive branch. While we have a President who is committed to securing our borders, protecting our communities, and restoring the enforcement of our immigration laws, now is the time to act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the gentleman says that the bill is unnecessary because terrorists are already covered under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This bill creates a new ground of removability and a new ground of inadmissibility for aliens who carried out, or participated in, or planned, or financed, or afforded material support to or otherwise facilitated any of the attacks against Israel beginning on October 7 of 2023. In doing so, the bill treats the atrocities of October 7 on a par with the Immigration and Nationality Act's current treatment of Nazi persecution, genocide, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Does anyone seriously argue that we should repeal the sanctions against persons who aided and abetted the Nazi's Holocaust? If not, then why would they oppose extending the same sanctions to the Nazi's would-be, modern-day successors who just 2 years ago slaughtered more than 1,200 innocent civilians, including children, infants, and the elderly because they were Jewish? Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close when the gentleman has completed, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. First of all, I am not familiar with the case, so I can't comment on that directly. I am quite confident that we have an existing process for applying the law and a process for appealing the application of that law through a writ of habeas corpus in the judiciary if an individual seeks to contest it.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, for 4 devastating years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal mass migration in history. For 4 devastating years, we were told that the laws had to be changed if we wanted to do anything about it, and in the meantime anyone who illegally entered our country could stay in our country and be supported by American taxpayers. However, as President Trump said in this very Chamber and proved in his first weeks in office: We didn't new need new laws. We needed a new President. The largest illegal mass migration in history must now be followed by the largest legal deportation and repatriation in history. New laws would be helpful to prevent a future Joe Biden from making a mockery of our sovereignty and reopening our borders to the most violent criminal gangs, cartels, criminals, and terrorists on the planet, and it would be helpful to give a future President Donald Trump the added tools to quickly and expeditiously prevent these same groups from infiltrating our Nation, preying on our communities, and attacking our people. This law will stop the Hamas terrorists and their supporters who perpetrated the most violent attack against innocent civilians since the Holocaust from entering our country, as we already sanctioned Nazi collaborators. Although they are a tiny fraction of those who do our country harm, at least it does that. To the apologists of the Democrats' open-border policies who say that this is unnecessary and covered by other laws on the books, I would ask these two questions: First, if that were so, then where were those laws under Joe Biden? Second, even if their argument was true and the legislation was entirely unnecessary, then why would they object to sending a strong message around the world that terrorists will get no quarter here? Madam Speaker, if you have associated with Hamas, then you are persona non grata in America, as you should be in any corner of the world that values peace, justice, and human dignity. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 616) to amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association.