To authorize the Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program to address deficiencies in community infrastructure supportive of land ports of entry, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a new federal grant program to fund local infrastructure projects that support or are significantly impacted by land ports of entry, with flexible matching requirements for rural or homeland security-critical projects.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish the Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program. This program would provide grants and supplemental funds to state, tribal, and local governments, as well as not-for-profit utility services, to address infrastructure deficiencies in communities near land ports of entry. Eligible projects aim to improve trade efficiency, border security, port resilience, quality of life for U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, and mitigate community impacts like traffic and pollution.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this program is crucial for modernizing critical border infrastructure, enhancing national security, facilitating legitimate trade and travel, and improving the quality of life for U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and border communities disproportionately affected by port operations. They would highlight the urgent need to address existing infrastructure deficiencies that impede both security and economic activity.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this program represents an expansion of federal spending into areas traditionally handled by state or local governments, potentially leading to wasteful spending or projects that are not directly related to core federal border security mandates. Concerns could also be raised about the broad definition of 'community infrastructure' and the potential for political influence in project selection.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Authorization of the Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program
This section authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a program that provides grants and supplements existing federal funds. The purpose is to help state, tribal, and local governments, as well as non-profit, member-owned utility services, fix problems with infrastructure that supports land ports of entry. This means the federal government can now directly fund or assist in funding local projects related to border crossings, addressing critical needs in these communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this authorization is essential to provide much-needed federal support for communities that bear the brunt of maintaining infrastructure around critical land ports, which are vital for national security and economic activity. They contend that local entities often lack the resources to address these unique challenges independently.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this expands the federal government's role into local infrastructure, potentially creating a new entitlement program without clear limits on federal spending or oversight, and could lead to federal funds being used for projects that are not strictly national priorities.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between local control and federal support for nationally significant infrastructure. While federal funding can address critical needs, it also introduces federal oversight and potentially shifts local priorities.
Section 2(b)
Eligibility Criteria and Project Categories
This section directs the Secretary to establish specific rules for what kind of community infrastructure projects can receive funding. It outlines five categories of eligible projects: those improving trade/travel safety and efficiency, enhancing border security, increasing resilience of ports, improving quality of life for U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel families, and addressing negative community impacts like traffic or pollution caused by ports. This ensures funds are directed towards strategic priorities.
Section 2(f)
Matching Requirement and Exceptions
Generally, recipients of financial assistance must contribute at least 30% of the total project cost from non-federal sources. However, the Secretary has the discretion to reduce or completely waive this matching requirement for projects in rural areas or for projects deemed advantageous for homeland security reasons. This flexibility aims to ensure that critical projects in less affluent or strategically important areas are not hindered by an inability to meet the match.
Authorizes the Secretary to reimburse State, Tribal, or local governments or not-for-profit utilities for up to 70% of costs incurred for eligible community infrastructure projects on or after November 15, 2021, provided they meet the bill's criteria. This reimbursement can be adjusted if the project qualifies for a reduced matching requirement.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to allow for reimbursement of projects that commenced or were completed prior to the bill's enactment but align with its intent, often to capture projects initiated under previous authorizations or in anticipation of new funding. It is a technical detail rather than an evasive one.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that communities that have already invested in critical infrastructure, anticipating or needing federal support, are not penalized for acting proactively. It allows for retroactive support for deserving projects that align with the program's goals.
Case against: Critics might argue that retroactive reimbursement could open the door to funding projects that were not initially designed with the program's specific criteria in mind, or that it could be seen as a bailout for past local spending decisions, potentially without the same level of federal oversight as prospective grants.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, depending on the number and cost of eligible projects undertaken since November 2021. Could involve millions or tens of millions in federal outlays, adding to the program's overall cost.
Specifies that projects designed to enhance border security will be measured by their predicted impact on illicit drug seizure rates and other relevant metrics for securing the border at ports of entry established pursuant to section 1092(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (6 U.S.C. 223(c)).
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to incorporate existing statutory definitions or metrics without reprinting them, ensuring consistency across federal law and leveraging established frameworks. It is not an evasive tactic.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing existing, established metrics from prior legislation ensures consistency and leverages existing frameworks for evaluating border security effectiveness, providing a clear and objective standard for project assessment and accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions makes the bill less transparent and harder for the public to understand without specialized legal research. They might also question if the referenced metrics are the most appropriate or comprehensive for evaluating all aspects of border security for this specific program.
Estimated impact: Indirectly impacts the types of projects prioritized for funding under the border security category, potentially shifting investments towards projects with measurable impacts on drug interdiction and other specific security outcomes defined by the referenced statute.