No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas committed a horrific assault on innocent civilians in Israel, murdering 1,200 people, including 32 Americans, killing the most Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.

Even now, Hamas continues to hold innocent men, women, and children in captivity. Not a day goes by that I don't think of the hostages:

Of Kfir Bibas, who turned 1 in captivity, and his family, whose lives Hamas has used as a tool of psychological torture;

Of U.S. citizens, like Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose arm was blown off at the Nova music festival, and Keith Siegel, whose wife was released while he remains in Gaza;

Of peace activists, like Oded Lifshitz, who spent so much his life helping Palestinians get access to lifesaving healthcare;

Of the young women, like Noa Argamani and Agam Berger, who Hamas has used to torment and taunt their parents.

Every day since October 7 has been a nightmare from which we have been unable to wake up. It has been far too much suffering, too many lives have been lost, on both sides of the conflict.

H.R. 6679 has an important goal, ensuring that no one involved with the planning or commission of the October 7 attacks can enter the United States or receive any immigration benefits.

Our current laws already achieve this goal, however. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the INA, any noncitizen who has engaged in terrorist activity, provided material support to terrorists, or is a member of a terrorist organization, or a group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible to the United States.

Furthermore, the national security-related bars in the INA are very broad. To bar an individual, the Secretary of Homeland Security merely needs ``reasonable grounds to believe'' that the applicant presents a risk to national security or is otherwise seeking to engage in ``any unlawful activity'' in the United States.

This authority already applies to those who engage in or endorse terrorist activity, as well as those who provide material support to groups that take up arms against government forces. This is an extraordinarily broad provision that has barred even those who are forced to help armed groups.

As such, this bill is largely redundant to current law. I certainly support the aim of this legislation. No individual who is involved in these heinous attacks should find refuge in the United States.

That is why I intend to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. But I do have some concerns about the drafting of this bill.

For decades, when Congress wishes to prevent specific bad actors from entering the United States or accessing an immigration benefit, we have used bipartisan visa sanctions legislation. That approach would have the same effect the majority is attempting to achieve with this bill.

Today, however, the majority has chosen to directly amend the INA to impose visa sanctions. This is beyond bizarre.

Even after the September 11 attacks, we overhauled whole swaths of our immigration system, including creating the Department of Homeland Security, but we did not amend the INA to bar the people involved in the planning and commission of those attacks from entering into the United States. We used visa sanctions.

During markup, I asked the majority to work with us to improve the legislation and ensure there were no unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, they ignored our request. By not working with us, I worry that the majority signals an unseriousness about this issue that ensures that this bill will not become law.

Despite these concerns, I will vote ``yes'' on the legislation, and I urge everyone else to do so.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, no member of Hamas or anyone associated with the horrific attacks of October 7 should be allowed to enter this country. Although that is already the law, I support the goal of making sure this is crystal clear.

Though I have concerns about how this legislation was drafted and whether it would achieve its stated goal, I will support this bill with the hope that we can further improve it as it moves through the legislative process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I think it helps improve the underlying bill.

I wish the majority had worked with us on this legislation to make it a visa sanctions bill. If they had, this amendment would not be needed because we would already have the data this amendment requires to be reported.

However, given our concerns related to the drafting of this legislation and the potential for unintended consequences, I welcome this amendment so that Congress can unequivocally confirm that the number of people impacted by this bill is minimum.

The Congressional Budget Office has already said this bill has no budgetary impact because it essentially restates current law. This amendment will help confirm the accuracy of that analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I stated a few minutes ago, I support this amendment. I urge everyone to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source