Stopping Transfers of Public Funds Abroad Act
- Bill Number
- S. 3746
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Finance and Financial Sector
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-29: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-11T11:03:19Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation, titled the "Stopping Transfers of Public Funds Abroad Act," aims to prevent individuals who receive public assistance benefits from sending money abroad through remittance transfers (electronic transfers of funds, often to family members in other countries). It seeks to ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits are not used for international money transfers.
Key Provisions
- Declaration Requirement: Any person applying or reapplying for public assistance must provide a written statement, under penalty of perjury (a legal consequence for lying under oath), promising not to conduct any remittance transfers while receiving benefits.
- Penalty for Violation: If someone makes the declaration but then sends money via a remittance transfer while receiving benefits, they face a fine of up to $100,000.
- Definitions:
- Public Assistance Program: Refers to specific federal programs, including those like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and others listed in federal regulations.
- Remittance Transfer: Defined as the electronic transfer of funds requested by a sender in the U.S. to a recipient in another country, as outlined in existing consumer protection laws.
- Effective Date: The rules apply to benefits provided 30 days after the bill becomes law.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces a new federal restriction on remittance transfers for public assistance recipients, which was not previously prohibited. It adds an enforcement mechanism (the perjury declaration) and a substantial civil penalty ($100,000 fine) to existing public assistance eligibility rules. It builds on definitions from the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (a 1978 law regulating electronic payments) but applies them specifically to welfare programs.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies administering public assistance (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services for TANF and Medicaid, Department of Agriculture for SNAP) must implement the declaration process, potentially increasing administrative workload, verification efforts, and enforcement costs.
- On Citizens: Recipients of public assistance may face barriers to supporting family abroad, limiting their financial choices and risking severe fines for non-compliance. It could deter eligible individuals from applying for benefits due to the added restriction.
- On International Relations: The bill may reduce the flow of remittances to other countries (which total billions annually and support economies in places like Latin America and Asia), potentially straining U.S. ties with nations reliant on these funds, though it does not directly address foreign policy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Public Assistance Recipients: Primarily low-income individuals and families who rely on programs like SNAP or TANF; they must comply or risk losing benefits and facing fines.
- Federal Agencies: Entities like the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and others overseeing listed programs, responsible for enforcement.
- Remittance Service Providers: Companies handling international transfers (e.g., Western Union, MoneyGram) may see reduced business from this group and could face indirect regulatory scrutiny.
- Taxpayers: Indirectly affected, as the bill is framed to protect public funds from being sent abroad.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The perjury declaration ties into existing federal law on false statements (28 U.S.C. § 1746), making violations prosecutable. The $100,000 fine is a civil penalty, enforceable without criminal charges, but it could lead to increased litigation over enforcement fairness.
- Constitutional Implications: The restriction on personal financial decisions might raise questions about due process rights (fair treatment under the law) or equal protection (treating similar groups differently), though the bill focuses on benefit conditions rather than outright bans. It does not appear to infringe on free speech or other core rights directly.
- Political Implications: The bill reflects debates over welfare program integrity and immigration-related spending, potentially polarizing views on public fund use. If enacted, it could set a precedent for conditioning benefits on specific financial behaviors, influencing future policy on economic aid.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-29: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 2026-01-29: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Stopping Transfers of Public Funds Abroad Act — issued 2026-01-29 — PDF (3 pages)