The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 10106·119th Congress·Introduced Aug 13, 2026

VISITOR Act

IntroducedImmigrationSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
Committees
Appropriations Committee (primary)
Last action
Aug 13, 2026

Bottom line

This bill aims to improve the efficiency of visa processing by redirecting existing fee revenues and setting a clear performance target for interview wait times.

What it actually does

The bill, titled the VISITOR Act, authorizes the Department of State to use certain collected passport and visa fees, including existing surcharges and fraud prevention fees, for general consular services, specifically to reduce visa wait times. It also allows for the transfer of unobligated balances from various State Department accounts to support consular operations and sets a goal for 80% of nonimmigrant visa applicants to be interviewed within three weeks.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that by allowing the Department of State to directly utilize visa and passport fees, the bill provides necessary resources to address the significant backlogs and long wait times for visa appointments, which have negatively impacted tourism, business travel, and family reunification. They contend that this measure will streamline operations, enhance consular services for both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens abroad, and ultimately boost economic activity by facilitating legitimate travel.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that while reducing wait times is desirable, this bill could potentially divert funds intended for specific purposes, such as fraud prevention, to general consular services, thereby weakening other critical functions. They might also raise concerns about the flexibility granted to the Secretary of State to transfer unobligated balances, suggesting it could reduce congressional oversight over State Department spending or lead to underfunding of other "Administration of Foreign Affairs" priorities if funds are frequently shifted to consular operations.

The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)(1)

Authorization to Use Collected Fees for General Consular Services

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends existing law to explicitly allow certain passport and immigrant visa surcharges, including those for enhanced border security and fraud prevention, to be used for the broader costs of providing general consular services. This means funds previously earmarked for more specific purposes can now be applied to a wider range of consular activities, including reducing visa wait times and protecting U.S. citizens abroad.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupDepartment of StateImpactIncreased flexibility in fund allocationMechanismStatutory amendment to 22 U.S.C. 214(b) and authorization for specific surcharges.ScalePotentially significant, as it re-prioritizes existing revenue streams.
GroupVisa applicants (non-immigrant and immigrant)ImpactPotential for reduced wait timesMechanismMore resources directed to processing applications.ScaleBroad, affecting all applicants.
GroupU.S. citizens abroadImpactEnhanced consular protectionMechanismBroader use of fees for general consular services.ScaleIndirect benefit.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this flexibility is crucial for the State Department to adapt to fluctuating demands for consular services, especially in addressing visa backlogs. They contend that these fees are generated by consular services and should be readily available to improve those services, ultimately benefiting travelers, businesses, and U.S. foreign policy goals.

Critics contend

Critics might express concern that broadening the use of fees, particularly those previously designated for fraud prevention, could dilute the effectiveness of those specific programs. They might argue that a more direct appropriation process or targeted funding mechanism would be preferable to ensure accountability and prevent unintended consequences for critical security functions.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the need for operational flexibility and efficiency in consular services against the potential for diluting specific funding mandates, such as those for fraud prevention, and maintaining clear congressional oversight over fund allocation.

Section 2(b)(2)

Authority to Transfer Unobligated Balances to Consular and Border Security Programs

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision grants the Secretary of State the authority to transfer unobligated balances from various State Department accounts under "Administration of Foreign Affairs" to the Consular and Border Security Programs account. This can be done for fees listed in a previous appropriations act, or for other amounts if the Secretary determines it's necessary to sustain consular operations, following consultation with congressional appropriations committees.

Section 2(c)

Establishment of 3-Week Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Goal

prominently featuredstraightforward

The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to set a goal of interviewing 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants within three weeks of receiving their application. It acknowledges that resource and security considerations, as well as the need to prioritize services for U.S. citizens, may necessitate exceptions to this goal.

FOUND

This provision authorizes surcharges collected under the "Diplomatic and Consular Programs" heading of the Department of State and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 8 U.S.C. 1714) and fees deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account (8 U.S.C. 1356(v)(2)(A)) to be made available for general consular services.

Section 2(b)(1)(A) and (B)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing existing law and funding streams, rather than an attempt to be evasive. However, it does make the bill less self-contained for a casual reader.

Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing statutes is the correct and precise way to identify the specific funds being addressed, ensuring legal clarity and avoiding redundant text.

Case against: Critics might argue that while legally precise, this method makes it difficult for the public to easily discern the full scope and implications of the bill without extensive legal research, potentially hindering transparency.

Estimated impact: These fees represent a significant portion of the revenue collected by the Department of State for consular services, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which are now given broader application.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this