Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill amends 31 U.S.C. §5312 to add “wire transfer service providers” as a defined category subject to Bank Secrecy Act/anti‑money laundering requirements. It directs the Treasury Secretary to issue implementing rules within 180 days, and makes the new requirements effective one year after enactment.
Supporters stress AML/national security; opponents stress regulatory overreach and costs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment that adds 'wire transfer service providers' to 31 U.S.C. §5312(a), supplies a statutory definition, requires Treasury rulemaking within 180 days, and sets a 1-year effective date.
The bill amends 31 U.S.C. §5312 to add “wire transfer service providers” as a defined category subject to Bank Secrecy Act/anti‑money laundering requirements.
It directs the Treasury Secretary to issue implementing rules within 180 days, and makes the new requirements effective one year after enactment.
The definition explicitly covers entities doing electronic transfers for consumers or businesses, domestic or cross‑border.
Technically focused and plausible bipartisan appeal, but regulatory costs, industry opposition, and Senate procedure create moderate uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment that adds 'wire transfer service providers' to 31 U.S.C. §5312(a), supplies a statutory definition, requires Treasury rulemaking within 180 days, and sets a 1-year effective date. It clearly defines the problem and the principal legal insertion but leaves most operational details to delegated regulation and omits fiscal, enforcement, and oversight specifics.
Supporters stress AML/national security; opponents stress regulatory overreach and costs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Supporters stress AML/national security; opponents stress regulatory overreach and costs
Likely broadly supportive because the bill aims to close a regulatory gap used by criminal organizations, strengthening law enforcement and protections for victims.
Would seek safeguards to avoid burdens on low‑income remitters and ensure civil liberties and anti‑discrimination protections during implementation.
Cautious support if rules are proportionate, targeted, and administrable; favors balancing national security benefits with costs to businesses and consumers.
Wants clear rulemaking, cost estimates, phased implementation, and measured enforcement to avoid unnecessary disruption.
Likely skeptical or opposed because it expands federal regulatory authority and compliance burdens on private financial services.
Concerned about overreach, higher costs, stifling innovation, and the effect on lawful remittances and small businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused and plausible bipartisan appeal, but regulatory costs, industry opposition, and Senate procedure create moderate uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Supporters stress AML/national security; opponents stress regulatory overreach and costs
Technically focused and plausible bipartisan appeal, but regulatory costs, industry opposition, and Senate procedure create moderate uncert…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment that adds 'wire transfer service providers' to 31 U.S.C. §5312(a), supplies a statutory definition, requires Treasury rulemaking wit…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.