PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 9, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10643 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10643 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10643 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10643 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes higher dollar penalties and longer minimum penalty periods for serious H–1B visa violations. It also proposes higher penalty ranges for immigration document fraud. People or organizations subject to the amended provisions could face these increases, but the supplied text does not reproduce the existing rules defining who is covered or what triggers each penalty.
Increased penalties for serious H–1B violations
(1) in clause (ii)— (A) in subclause (I), by striking $5,000 and inserting $100,000; and (B) in subclause (II), by striking at least 2 years and inserting at least 5 years; and (2) in clause (iii)— (A) in subclause (I), by striking $35,000 and inserting $250,000; and (B) in subclause (II), by striking at least 3 years and inserting at least 10 years.
3. Penalties for document fraud Section 274C(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324c(d)(3)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 and inserting not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 and inserting not less than $20,000 and not more than $50,000.
Section 1 would name the legislation the H–1B Visa Fraud Crackdown Act.
This Act may be cited as the H–1B Visa Fraud Crackdown Act.
Section 2 would change two serious H–1B violation provisions in section 212(n)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In clause (ii), it would replace $5,000 with $100,000 and “at least 2 years” with “at least 5 years.” In clause (iii), it would replace $35,000 with $250,000 and “at least 3 years” with “at least 10 years.”
2. Increased penalties for serious H–1B violations Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended— (1) in clause (ii)— (A) in subclause (I), by striking $5,000 and inserting $100,000; and (B) in subclause (II), by striking at least 2 years and inserting at least 5 years; and (2) in clause (iii)— (A) in subclause (I), by striking $35,000 and inserting $250,000; and (B) in subclause (II), by striking at least 3 years and inserting at least 10 years.
Section 3 would increase two document-fraud penalty ranges in section 274C(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subparagraph (A)'s range would rise from $250–$2,000 to $1,000–$10,000. Subparagraph (B)'s range would rise from $2,000–$5,000 to $20,000–$50,000.
3. Penalties for document fraud Section 274C(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324c(d)(3)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 and inserting not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 and inserting not less than $20,000 and not more than $50,000.
The October 9, 2026 source snapshot records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 1, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-09T15:31:04Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, preferential exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 9, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI