HR-8805-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
Sponsored by W. Steube (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would do two things. First, it would give all federal law enforcement officers performing immigration enforcement a supplemental payment equal to 25% of their base salary, plus an additional 15% for those working in nine named metropolitan areas (and any others later designated as "hazardous duty areas"). Second, it would add a flat surcharge on top of the existing 1% federal tax on international money transfers: $99 per transfer to countries with visa overstay rates above 2%, $199 per transfer to a list of 12 named countries (Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), or $298 if both conditions apply.
Who benefits
Federal immigration enforcement officers (ICE, CBP, and others meeting the "covered employee" definition) who would receive significant pay increases. Agencies seeking to recruit and retain immigration enforcement personnel. Indirectly, communities where supporters argue enforcement reduces crime. The federal government, which would collect new revenue from the remittance surcharge.
Who is hurt
Immigrants and U.S. citizens — including many legal residents and naturalized citizens — who regularly send money to family members in the 12 named countries or in high-overstay-rate countries, as the flat surcharges could equal or exceed the value of small transfers. Workers in low-wage industries who send remittances as a primary means of supporting family abroad. Residents of the nine named metropolitan areas whose local governments did not request the "hazardous duty" designation. Financial services companies and money transfer operators that process remittances and may face reduced transaction volume. Taxpayers who fund the supplemental pay increases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that immigration enforcement officers face genuine physical risks — including documented assaults and interference — and that current pay levels make recruitment and retention difficult at a time of high enforcement demand. They contend the hazardous duty pay mirrors existing federal frameworks for dangerous assignments and that the remittance surcharge creates a revenue stream tied to the enforcement mission, while also applying financial pressure on countries that fail to cooperate with U.S. immigration policy by allowing high visa overstay rates.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the flat remittance surcharges are economically regressive, falling hardest on low-income senders who transfer small amounts — a $199 surcharge on a $200 transfer to Haiti, for example, would effectively double the cost. They contend the "hazardous duty" designations for specific cities are politically motivated rather than based on objective officer safety data, and that using "significant concentration of unauthorized immigrants" as a hazard criterion conflates the presence of a civilian population with physical danger to officers.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over immigration and taxation under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the taxing power. The remittance surcharge's country-specific targeting could raise Due Process questions under the 5th Amendment for U.S. persons burdened by the tax, though courts have historically given Congress wide latitude in structuring excise taxes. The hazardous duty area designations delegate expansion authority to the OPM Director, DHS Secretary, and Attorney General, which post-Loper Bright (2024) means courts would independently assess whether the statutory criteria sufficiently constrain that delegation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (OPM, DHS, and DOJ) gains authority to expand the list of hazardous duty areas, subject to annual review; Congress retains oversight through the appropriations process and committee jurisdiction, and courts could review designations and surcharge applications under the APA and Due Process Clause.
Historical precedent
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 included a 1% excise tax on remittance transfers (codified at IRC §4475), which this bill would modify; flat per-transfer surcharges of this magnitude targeting specific countries have no direct federal precedent.