CBP Relocation Act

Bill Number

H.R. 195

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-03: Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.

Last Updated

2025-02-24T20:44:30Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The legislation aims to relocate the headquarters of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from its current location to the state of Texas. This move is intended to position the agency closer to the U.S.-Mexico border, improving its ability to respond to border-related crises, such as security threats or emergencies.

Key Provisions

• Relocation Mandate: The Secretary of Homeland Security, through the CBP Commissioner, must relocate the CBP headquarters—including all functions, personnel (employees), and real assets (physical property like buildings and equipment)—to Texas no later than January 1, 2026.
• Collaboration Requirement: The Secretary must work with the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office (a state agency that manages public lands) to ensure the new headquarters is placed in a location that is strategically advantageous for managing crises at the U.S.-Mexico border.
• Land Acquisition Authority: The Secretary is authorized to purchase or acquire land in Texas through a formal written contract with the seller. Any land title (legal ownership document) obtained must meet the U.S. Attorney General's standards for federal government land purchases, ensuring clear and valid ownership.
• Short Title: The bill is officially named the "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Relocation Act" or "CBP Relocation Act."

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill introduces a specific directive for relocating CBP's headquarters, which is currently based in Washington, D.C. Prior to this, no federal law mandated such a move, though the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has general authority to manage agency operations and locations.
• It adds requirements for collaboration with a state agency (Texas General Land Office) and ties the relocation site to border security needs, which were not previously specified in CBP's operational statutes.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: DHS and CBP would face logistical challenges, including moving thousands of employees and assets, potentially incurring significant costs for relocation, new facilities, and temporary disruptions to operations. This could enhance border-focused efficiency but strain resources during the transition.
• On Citizens: Border communities in Texas and along the U.S.-Mexico border might benefit from quicker CBP responses to crises, such as smuggling or migration issues. However, federal employees and their families could experience personal disruptions from the required move.
• On International Relations: Positioning CBP headquarters nearer the border could signal a stronger U.S. emphasis on border security, potentially influencing diplomatic interactions with Mexico on trade, migration, and security cooperation, though it may not directly alter treaties or agreements.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Agencies: Primarily DHS and CBP, including their leadership, staff, and operational teams who would need to relocate or adapt.
• State of Texas: The Texas General Land Office and local governments, which would collaborate on site selection and could see economic benefits from new federal jobs and infrastructure.
• Federal Employees: CBP personnel (estimated at over 60,000 nationwide) whose jobs might require moving to Texas, affecting their careers and personal lives.
• Border Communities: Residents and businesses near the U.S.-Mexico border, who could experience improved security responses but also potential increases in federal presence.
• U.S. Taxpayers: Indirectly affected through funding for the relocation, though the bill does not specify a budget.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The bill leverages existing federal authority under DHS to manage agency locations and acquire land (e.g., via the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act), but it imposes a strict deadline and strategic criteria that could lead to lawsuits if not met, such as challenges over land acquisition or employee rights.
• Constitutional Implications: Congress is exercising its power to direct executive branch operations (under Article I), but this could raise questions about separation of powers if seen as micromanaging DHS without sufficient funding or flexibility.
• Political Implications: The focus on Texas and the U.S.-Mexico border highlights priorities in immigration and border security, potentially fueling debates on federal resource allocation and state-federal partnerships. As an introduced bill (H.R. 195 in the 119th Congress), it reflects partisan interests in enhancing southern border enforcement but would require Senate approval and presidential signature to become law.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-03: Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
• 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection Relocation Act — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (3 pages)