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. 4336·119th Congress·Introduced Jul 10, 2025

CBP SPACE Act

IntroducedForeign Trade and International FinanceSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]
Committees
Ways and Means Committee (primary)
Last action
Jul 10, 2025

Bottom line

The bill allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use existing user fees for infrastructure upgrades at sea ports, aiming to improve facilities and operations while shifting some funding responsibility.

What it actually does

This bill expands the permissible uses of merchandise processing fees (MPF) collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to include capital costs associated with passenger inspection services. It also prohibits CBP from requiring sea ports of entry to provide or maintain administrative, training, or recreational facilities for CBP, and mandates an annual report on the use of MPF proceeds for inspection facilities and their capital needs. A Sense of Congress encourages setting MPF levels to adequately fund these capital improvements.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill provides a crucial and dedicated funding stream for modernizing U.S. Customs and Border Protection infrastructure at sea ports, which is essential for enhancing security, improving efficiency, and facilitating trade. They contend that using user fees for capital costs ensures that those who benefit from CBP services contribute to their upkeep, reducing reliance on general taxpayer funds and preventing unfunded mandates on local ports.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that expanding the use of merchandise processing fees to cover capital costs could lead to increased costs for importers, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers. They may also contend that significant federal infrastructure projects should be funded through general appropriations, ensuring broader public accountability and preventing a disproportionate burden on specific industries or users.

The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation within the given time.

Section 2(a)

Expansion of Merchandise Processing Fee Usage to Include Capital Costs

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 to allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to use merchandise processing fees (MPF) not only for 'salaries and expenses' but also for 'capital costs.' Specifically, it clarifies that these fees can be used for capital costs associated with passenger inspection services. This means MPF funds can now be directed towards equipment upgrades, and the construction, improvement, and maintenance of facilities at U.S. sea ports of entry.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupU.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)ImpactGains a dedicated funding stream for capital improvements at sea ports of entry.MechanismExpansion of authorized uses for existing merchandise processing fees.ScaleSignificant, as it addresses a long-standing funding gap for infrastructure.
GroupImporters and BusinessesImpactMay face potential increases in merchandise processing fees to cover new capital costs.MechanismThe 'Sense of Congress' suggests adjusting fee levels to adequately fund capital needs.ScalePotentially moderate, depending on fee adjustments and volume of imports.
GroupSea Ports of EntryImpactBenefit from federally funded capital improvements to inspection facilities.MechanismDirect allocation of MPF funds for facility construction, improvement, and maintenance.ScaleSignificant, leading to modernized infrastructure and potentially improved operational efficiency.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this change is vital for ensuring CBP has the necessary resources to maintain and upgrade critical infrastructure at sea ports, which are essential for national security and facilitating legitimate trade. They contend that user fees are an appropriate mechanism to fund these improvements, as the beneficiaries of the services contribute directly to their quality.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that expanding the scope of user fees to cover capital costs could place an undue financial burden on importers, potentially increasing the cost of goods for consumers. They may also contend that federal infrastructure should be funded through general appropriations, reflecting a broader public benefit rather than a specific industry charge.

Tradeoffs

This provision balances the need for robust CBP infrastructure with concerns about the financial burden on trade. It shifts funding responsibility from general appropriations to user fees, which can provide a more stable funding source but may increase costs for businesses and potentially consumers.

Section 3

Prohibition on CBP Requiring Ports to Provide Certain Facilities

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section prohibits the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from requesting or requiring a sea port of entry to provide or maintain administrative, training, or recreational facilities for CBP inspection services. It also includes a rule of construction clarifying that this prohibition does not affect existing authority under section 482 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which relates to the provision of services and facilities by the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 4

Annual Report on Merchandise Processing Fee Use

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section mandates that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection submit an annual report to specific congressional committees. The report must detail the total amount of merchandise processing fees collected, the portion of those proceeds directed to inspection facilities at sea ports of entry, and a description of the outstanding capital needs of these facilities. This aims to provide transparency and oversight regarding how these user fees are utilized for infrastructure improvements.

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
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this