New immigrant visa surcharge funds border modernization—shifting costs to travelers.

What it does

This bill creates a dedicated trust fund for modernizing U.S. land ports of entry by redirecting existing customs and immigration fees—25% of express consignment fees, up to $1.6 billion in merchandise processing fees, and 25% of new surcharges on immigrant visas and border inspection fees—into infrastructure, technology, staffing, and repairs at land borders. A 9-member oversight board (led by DHS) will advise on spending priorities and report annually to Congress.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is establishing a dedicated trust fund for border infrastructure by capturing existing and new user fees. It is functionally a fee-based infrastructure financing tool, not a general appropriation or subsidy.

What the text implies

• New surcharges on immigrant visas ($40) and border inspection fees ($6) create a de facto immigration tax that may discourage legal border crossing and visa applications, shifting costs to individuals rather than general taxpayers.
• The bill redirects up to $1.6 billion in existing merchandise processing fees that could have reduced trade costs; this represents a hidden transfer from importers/consumers to border infrastructure, potentially raising import prices.
• The oversight board is chaired by DHS with no independent members, limiting external accountability; all three industry representatives are appointed by DHS, concentrating influence over spending priorities.
• The bill does not require fee increases to be offset by reductions elsewhere, creating a permanent revenue stream that may insulate the fund from budget scrutiny and appropriations discipline.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens benefit from modernized border infrastructure and faster processing, but the bill funds this by imposing new surcharges on immigrants ($40 per visa, $6 per border inspection) and redirecting fees that might otherwise reduce general customs costs. The burden falls disproportionately on immigrants and cross-border travelers, while the public benefit is diffuse.

Who stands to gain

• construction and engineering firms (port of entry expansion/repair contracts)
• technology vendors (cargo inspection systems, border processing infrastructure)
• federal contractors (CBP staffing support, consulting)

Named in the bill

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Land Port of Entry Modernization Oversight Board, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Immigration and Nationality Act, Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 3 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Feb 13, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 13, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary and House Committee on Agriculture · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $720,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 164 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Henry Cuellar, the sponsor, reported $739,840 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Trucking Associations — $720,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.