Border Security Investment Act

Bill Number

H.R. 445

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-15: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

Last Updated

2025-02-13T15:15:51Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Border Security Investment Act aims to enhance border security funding by imposing fees on certain international money transfers (remittances) and directing the revenue into dedicated trust funds. These funds support reimbursements to border states for security costs and federal efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

Key Provisions

• New Fee on Remittances: Amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to require money services businesses (financial entities handling transfers, like wire services) to charge a 37% fee on remittances sent to "covered countries." These are the top five countries whose citizens or nationals had the most unlawful entries into the U.S. in the prior fiscal year, as identified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
• Fee Collection and Deposit: All fees collected are submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and deposited into the general fund.
• Border Security State Reimbursement Trust Fund:
• Receives 50% of the prior year's remittance fees from the general fund.
• Funds are invested in U.S. government obligations (secure bonds or similar), with interest credited back to the fund.
• Available without additional congressional approval to reimburse "border states" (states along the U.S.-Mexico border, such as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California) for costs related to border security enforcement. Reimbursements are based on submitted receipts for expenses like deterring unlawful crossings, detecting illegal activity, or gaining operational control of the southwest border.
• States can apply within 30 days of enactment for prior-year expenses, with funds distributed proportionally among applicants.
• Border Security Trust Fund:
• Also receives 50% of the prior year's remittance fees from the general fund.
• Similarly invested in U.S. government obligations, with interest credited back.
• Available without additional approval to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for:
• Deploying technology to detect and prevent unlawful border crossings.
• Installing physical barriers along the southern border.
• Paying wages and salaries for U.S. Border Patrol agents.
• Excess Funds Management: If the combined balance of both trust funds exceeds $50 billion, the surplus is permanently canceled (rescinded) and redirected to the general fund solely for reducing the federal budget deficit, without being used to offset other spending or tax cuts.
• Effective Date: Takes effect no later than 30 days after enactment, with annual transfers starting in the next fiscal year.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a novel 37% fee on remittances to specific countries, which did not previously exist under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (a law regulating electronic money transfers to protect consumers).
• Creates two new trust funds in the U.S. Treasury, providing dedicated, ongoing funding streams for border security without needing yearly appropriations from Congress.
• Ties fee revenue directly to unlawful entry data, making the funding mechanism responsive to annual immigration trends.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: DHS and CBP gain reliable funding for technology, barriers, and personnel, potentially improving border enforcement efficiency. Treasury handles fee collection and fund management, adding administrative duties. Border states receive reimbursements, easing local budget strains from security costs.
• On Citizens: U.S. residents sending remittances (often immigrants supporting families abroad) face significantly higher transfer costs, which could reduce the amount of money sent or discourage use of formal services. Border state taxpayers may see relief from state-funded security expenses.
• On International Relations: Could strain ties with "covered countries" (likely including nations like Mexico or those in Central America), as the fee targets their nationals and may be seen as punitive. Might indirectly affect migration patterns if remittances become more expensive.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Remittance Senders and Recipients: Primarily immigrants in the U.S. sending money to families in high-migration countries, who bear the direct cost of the 37% fee.
• Money Services Businesses: Entities like Western Union or MoneyGram must collect and remit fees, facing compliance costs and potential customer backlash.
• Border States and Local Governments: Benefit from reimbursements for security-related spending, such as law enforcement or infrastructure.
• Federal Agencies: DHS, CBP, and Treasury are key implementers, with expanded roles in funding and oversight.
• U.S. Taxpayers: Indirectly affected through deficit reduction from excess funds and potential shifts in federal spending priorities.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The fee could face challenges under consumer protection laws or as an unauthorized tax, given its high rate and targeting of specific nationalities. The reliance on CBP data for "covered countries" might raise accuracy or due process concerns if determinations are disputed.
• Constitutional: Potential issues with equal protection (disproportionately affecting certain ethnic or national groups) or federalism (involving state reimbursements without clear interstate commerce ties). The trust funds' "without further appropriation" clause bypasses typical congressional budgeting, which could test separation of powers.
• Political: Reinforces a tough stance on immigration by linking remittances—a key economic lifeline for migrant communities—to border enforcement. As a bipartisan-introduced bill (by Texas representatives), it highlights regional priorities but may polarize debates on immigration policy, funding sources, and equity for immigrant populations.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

Cosponsors (7)

Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Goldman, Craig [R-TX-12]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-15: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
• 2025-01-15: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-01-15: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-01-15: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-15: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Border Security Investment Act — issued 2025-01-15 — PDF (8 pages)