Senators press sponsor on privacy, enforcement and costs in proposed remittance fee bill

A conference report for a bill that would impose a fee on some money transfers sent from the United States to other countries drew extensive questions from senators over how it would be enforced and whom it would affect.

Senator Michael Johnson, sponsor of the conference report, said the bill is designed to charge a fee on certain cash or money-order transfers and to exempt people who can show they are in the country legally. "If you're here on a visa, if you just have a passport that's proper, that's stamped that you're in the country legally, you would not be charged that fee," Johnson said, explaining the practical exemption and the regulatory roles he expects DOR and the Department of Banking to play.

Supporters and critics alike pressed the sponsor on details the bill leaves to administration: Who will judge whether identity documents are valid at a rural money-transfer storefront; whether small community money transmitters will be required to keep private copies of driver's licenses or birth certificates; and how audits would be conducted. "We do not define that criteria in the legislation," Johnson acknowledged. "I believe that would be a combination of DOR and the Department of Banking on the licensing part, and probably more so on regulations by Department of Banking." (Senator Johnson)

Senator Hill, opposing the bill's likely effect on people without ready documentation, framed the policy as an enforcement measure aimed at capturing money remitted by unauthorized workers: "What this bill is designed to do is catch the transfers out of the country from illegal immigrants who are coming into this state and working for cash," she said, urging senators to weigh good intentions against unintended harms.

Other senators raised legal and practical questions. Senator Thompson asked whether the bill includes a legislative finding to support an overriding state interest that could be used to defend the measure against a Commerce Clause challenge; the sponsor said there is not such language in the bill and could not point to a defense the courts would accept. Senators asked whether military families and students would be impacted if they lack identification at the point of sale; the sponsor said those groups would be exempt if they provide documentation but conceded gaps in the customer experience could result in fees being charged when documentation is unavailable.

Johnson said the measure was slated to take effect Sept. 1 and contains a one-year repealer provision (noted during Q&A). He also described compromises in conference: "We split [revenues] 0.5 to a HERO fund for first responders and 0.5 to the general fund," he said, summarizing how revenue allocation differed from earlier versions.

Senators repeatedly urged clearer rules on data handling and fraud protection and expressed concern about imposing record-retention burdens on small agents and their low-wage employees who would have to collect and safeguard sensitive documents. Several senators asked whether the Department of Banking would require vendors to retain copies of IDs for audit purposes; the sponsor said the bill leaves those specifics to the agencies.

The exchange underscored the conference-report stage of the process: sponsors said the bill's intent is to deter untaxed outflows while limiting burdens on lawful residents, but multiple senators warned the text leaves central operational questions unresolved and potentially raises constitutional risk.

The measure remained under consideration after the floor debate and is expected to return for further procedural steps.