PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 4, 2022
Border Czar Accountability Act of 2022
This bill prohibits any Cabinet member appointed by the President to lead efforts related to immigration or securing the U.S.-Mexico border from expending any federal funds if that Cabinet member fails to meet certain reporting requirements. The bill also requires that Cabinet member to visit the U.S.-Mexico border at least once every 60 days.
Within 30 days of this bill's enactment, the Cabinet member must report to Congress and the President on policy changes that went into effect between January 20, 2021, and this bill's enactment date, including the (1) effect of such policy changes on law enforcement and Department of Homeland Security personnel, and (2) difference in funds expended in FY2021 compared to FY2020 to address the issue of non-U.S. nationals (aliens in federal law) unlawfully present in the United States. If the report is not submitted, the Cabinet member may not obligate or expend any federal funds until the report has been delivered.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
After each visit to the U.S.-Mexico border required by this bill, the Cabinet member must report to the President and Congress on (1) issues observed or informed of during the visit, and (2) suggestions for improving the security and situation at the border.
People & committees
Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6610 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6610 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6610 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6610 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.