House Republicans Pass Bill Targeting Fraud
House Republicans have advanced two measures aimed at protecting taxpayers, restoring public confidence in Congress, and strengthening the integrity of federal elections—forcing Democrats to defend their opposition to policies that enjoy broad support among American voters.
The House first passed the Deporting Fraudsters Act, legislation that would make certain noncitizens inadmissible to or removable from the United States after committing fraud against the government or unlawfully obtaining taxpayer-funded public benefits.
The measure, H.R. 1958, was approved on March 18 by a vote of 231-186. Every Republican who participated supported it, along with 20 Democrats. All 186 opposing votes came from Democrats.
Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio, introduced the bill.
The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by establishing explicit grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for noncitizens who admit to or are convicted of specified fraud offenses involving the federal government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits.
The offenses covered by the legislation include certain forms of Social Security fraud, identity-document fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, theft involving federally funded programs, and fraud connected to benefits improperly obtained at the federal, state, tribal, or local level.
Republicans argued that immigrants who exploit American welfare programs should not be permitted to remain in the country after stealing resources intended for citizens and lawful beneficiaries.
“If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said during debate on the House floor.
The bill does not itself place every accused person immediately aboard a deportation flight. Instead, it creates legal grounds under immigration law that federal officials could use in inadmissibility or removal proceedings.
Its language nevertheless goes beyond requiring a completed criminal conviction. The measure also applies when a noncitizen formally admits to committing one of the covered offenses, a provision Democrats cited while raising due-process objections.
Democratic opponents argued that relying on an admission could permit immigration consequences without first securing a criminal conviction. They warned that noncitizens could face removal proceedings before every disputed factual question had been resolved in a criminal court.
Republicans responded that immigration law has long treated inadmissibility and deportability as civil matters distinct from criminal prosecution. They maintained that taxpayers should not be required to continue supporting noncitizens who acknowledge defrauding public programs.
The bill’s supporters also emphasized that fraud does more than reduce government account balances. Every dollar obtained through deception is a dollar unavailable to an eligible senior, veteran, disabled American, struggling family, or lawful beneficiary.
The measure now awaits further action in the Senate, where its ultimate prospects remain uncertain.
House Passes Stock Restrictions and Voter ID Requirements
Four months later, House Republicans approved another major package combining restrictions on congressional stock transactions with new voter-identification requirements for federal elections.
The House passed H.R. 7008, known as the Stop Insider Trading Act, on July 22 by a vote of 232-198.
All 218 House Republicans supported the legislation. Thirteen Democrats crossed party lines to vote yes, as did the chamber’s lone independent member. A total of 198 Democrats opposed it, and one Democrat did not vote.
The legislation would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing individual stocks while the member remains in office.
Current holdings would not have to be sold immediately. Lawmakers would remain permitted to sell investments they already possess, but they would generally have to provide advance public notice before completing those transactions.
The legislation also provides financial penalties for violations and requires the divestment of stocks acquired in violation of the law. Diversified funds and certain properly structured trusts would remain permitted.
Republicans argued that elected officials should not be able to use information or influence obtained through public office to build private investment portfolios unavailable to ordinary Americans.
Rep. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., defended the restrictions as necessary to rebuild trust in Congress.
“The American people deserve to know their elected officials are serving the public, not their own financial interests,” Bice said.
The package also includes a federal photo-identification requirement for voting, including procedures governing ballots cast by mail.
Republicans contend that requiring voters to verify their identities is a basic election-security safeguard used in many other areas of public life. They argue that consistent identification standards would discourage impersonation, improve the accuracy of election administration, and strengthen public confidence that every lawful vote is protected.
Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, one of the principal supporters of the congressional stock restrictions, said ethics reform and election integrity “go hand in hand.”
“One, the overwhelming majority of Americans want this. Two, it’s something that we can get passed this week that gets it into the president’s hands before the August return-to-district period,” Nunn said.
Responding to Democratic criticism, Nunn added, “Only in Washington can you have two wins for 90% of Americans, and Democrats will say that’s one win too many.”
Democrats argued that combining voter identification with stock-trading restrictions transformed what could have been an overwhelmingly bipartisan ethics bill into a partisan election measure.
Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said his party supported restricting lawmakers’ financial transactions but objected that the legislation did not apply the same limitations to the president, vice president, federal judges, and their families.
Democrats also argued that the stock provisions did not go far enough because lawmakers could retain and eventually sell their existing individual holdings instead of being required to divest them immediately.
Their strongest opposition, however, centered on voter identification.
Democrats characterized the identification provisions as unnecessary restrictions that could create additional obstacles for eligible voters, particularly those casting mail ballots.
Republicans rejected the claim that asking citizens to verify their identities constitutes voter suppression. They argued that election laws should protect access for every eligible American while also establishing reasonable safeguards against illegal or fraudulent participation.
The final package did not satisfy everyone on the Republican side.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., criticized leadership’s decision to attach voter identification language to the stock legislation. He argued that a stand-alone congressional stock-trading measure would have attracted broader bipartisan support and had a stronger chance of surviving the Senate.
Despite his criticism of how the legislation was structured, Massie ultimately voted for the final bill, as did every other House Republican.
The measure’s Senate future remains uncertain because most legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. With 198 House Democrats already opposing the package, Republicans would need significant Democratic cooperation in the Senate unless the legislation is altered.
Even so, House passage gives Republicans a powerful campaign contrast ahead of the November midterms.
They can now point to votes supporting a prohibition on future individual-stock purchases by lawmakers, stronger voter-identification standards, and the removal of noncitizens who defraud taxpayer-funded programs.
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, must explain why overwhelming majorities of their members opposed both the election-integrity package and legislation establishing deportation consequences for government-benefits fraud.
The two bills address different areas of federal law, but the underlying principle is the same: Public institutions exist to serve law-abiding Americans, not enrich politicians, tolerate fraud, or operate without meaningful accountability.