EB–5 Regional Center Program Advisory Committee Authorization Act
HB6992, the EB–5 Regional Center Program Advisory Committee Authorization Act, would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish an advisory committee within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) focused on the EB–5 Regional Center Program. The committee would be tasked with advising USCIS leadership, developing recommendations for program improvements, and submitting periodic and annual reports on program operations, policy issues, and program impacts. The bill also requires quarterly briefings to congressional committees and directs USCIS to publish a public version of the annual report.
The committee would be temporary, terminating once all benefits filed under the relevant EB–5 statutory provisions are adjudicated or when the program otherwise ends. The bill sets detailed membership rules intended to ensure representation from federal, state, local, and tribal governments, regional centers in good standing, and a range of geographic and project categories, including rural, high-unemployment, infrastructure, and census-region representation. It also creates subcommittees to examine administration, impact, policy, and other program issues, with no compensation for members beyond normal federal employment benefits for federal employees serving on the committee.
The bill would amend Subtitle E of Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by adding a new section establishing the EB–5 Regional Center Program Advisory Committee inside USCIS. It would not directly change the substantive eligibility rules of the EB–5 immigrant investor program, but it would create a formal advisory and reporting structure that could influence USCIS administration, guidance, and policy implementation. The bill also expressly states that it must not be construed to conflict with section 107 of the EB–5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, signaling an intent to operate within the existing EB–5 statutory framework.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears generally procedural and oversight-oriented rather than controversial on its face. Its structure suggests bipartisan or cross-sector support for improving administration, communication, and transparency in the EB–5 program, especially through stakeholder representation and public reporting. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bipartisan list of sponsors.
The main potential points of contention are likely to involve the composition and influence of the advisory committee. The bill gives significant representation to regional centers and government officials, which may raise concerns about balance, industry influence, or whether the committee could favor program participants over stricter enforcement interests. Another possible issue is the bill’s prohibition on case-specific recommendations, which limits the committee’s role and may disappoint stakeholders seeking more direct intervention on individual adjudications or petition delays. The bill also includes detailed category quotas and subcommittee requirements, which could be viewed as either necessary inclusivity or as administratively burdensome.