E&E
September 16, 2011
by Annie Snider
Efforts to let the U.S. Border Patrol waive environmental laws on public lands along the border advanced this week in a Senate spending bill.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2012 Homeland Security spending bill that would give Border Patrol agents free access to public lands within 300 miles of the border with Mexico. The committee approved a modified version, 13-4, that scaled the provision back to a 100-mile zone.
Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity based in Tucson, Ariz., said McCain's amendment and the whole issue of a conflict between between border security and environmental protections is a red herring.
"There's a motivation for politicians to grandstand on the issue," he said. "Unfortunately, what underlies this issue in general is a lot of ignorance and hysteria that's driven by misinformation."
Serraglio said the proposed exemptions could have a devastating effect on wildlife. In his region of Arizona, he points to jaguar, ocelot and Sonoran pronghorn as some of the sensitive species that could be affected.
Although worded differently, McCain's amendment closely follows a bill introduced earlier this year by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) that applies to the northern, southern and maritime borders. So far, the bill has attracted 49 co-sponsors.
Bishop and other supporters say environmental protections prevent Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs along the 40 percent of border land that is under federal management. Specifically, they point to the 4.3 million acres of wilderness areas where motorized vehicles are generally prohibited (Land Letter, July 14; Greenwire, April 18).
But in two studies completed last fall, the Government Accountability Office found that even when they caused delays, environmental protections were not a significant hindrance to security operations.
And at recent hearings, Border Patrol, Interior Department and Agriculture Department officials have denied that there is a problem.
"Does the Border Patrol face challenges with respect to operating around protected lands when they are in our enforcement zones? Yes," Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, told lawmakers in April. "But we have been able to establish practical solutions to allow for mission success."
Many of those solutions came from a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Customs and Border Patrol and land managers that gives Border Patrol agents greater access. Most notably, it allows the Border Patrol free access in exigent circumstances, like when in hot pursuit.
But Republicans say the Obama administration is putting a nice face on a dangerous problem.
"You can't come before the American people and say everything is rosy and fine," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of Bishop's bill, told administration officials in April. "The American people are dying. They are getting killed because we have holes in our security ... and we're putting border patrols out there and saying, 'Oh, go on horseback, go on foot,' because we'd much rather protect this little cactus."
Local concerns
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee have brought southern ranchers to testify about the dangers of the border region during hearings on Bishop's bill. But Hugo Tureck, a rancher and former chairman of the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council, said that is not an issue in his region.
Moreover, Tureck, who has been closely following recent debate over the Interior Department's ability to designate national monuments on federal land, said he saw hypocrisy in the fact that some of the same lawmakers who co-sponsored Bishop's bill this week decried the Antiquities Act as a "land grab" (Greenwire, Sept. 13).
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) "is talking about how the government has come in the middle of the night and taken away landowners' rights, but then he goes and proposes a bill that gives an agency extreme powers with no oversight," said Tureck, who grazes cattle on public land in Coffee Creek, Mont.
Tureck plans to pen an opinion piece in his local paper to alert Montanans to the issue.
"Homeland Security could stop timber sales, snowmobiles, hunting, they could kick cattle off the land and build a fence wherever they want -- that's all given to them," Tureck said. "Montanans just cherish their public lands. That's why we're here."
'A fundamentally scary piece of legislation'
For John Leshy, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law and a former Clinton administration solicitor for Interior, the problem with the border security bills is that they prevent DHS from being challenged in court.
"This is a fundamentally scary piece of legislation," Leshy said of Bishop's bill. "DHS basically gets a pass on judicial review. You can only challenge them on constitutional grounds, you can't challenge it as being inconsistent with any statute."
Leshy pointed to an exemption that Congress granted DHS in 1996 that was expanded. First, DHS had the right to waive the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of 14 miles of fenceline along the Mexican border. Then, in 2005, the right expanded to 70 miles of fence and all environmental laws. A year later, Congress extended the waiver to 400 miles of fence construction.
"If you've got the power, you're eventually going to exercise it," Leshy said. "That's just a fact of human nature."
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Critics blast proposal while supporters decry limitations
Nogales International / Cronkite News
July 12, 2011
by Matthew Trotter
A bill that would grant the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to federal lands near the border was sharply criticized Friday for giving the department unchecked authority.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would let DHS waive 36 environmental-protection laws for patrol activities within 100 miles of U.S. borders.
Opponents of the legislation went so far as to call the bill, HR 1505, “particularly stupid” during Friday’s hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. They called it overly broad and said it opened the door for DHS to completely disregard environmental-protection laws.
“1505 may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who represents Nogales and Rio Rico in Congress.
John Leshy, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, testified that the legislation would make DHS “immune from review by the courts, except for constitutional claims.”
Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.
“There’s a problem here in that Border Patrol is being restricted,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the bill’s sponsor. “They are not the problem.”
The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.
Claude Guyant, founder of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the current system is an unnecessary distraction.
“Border Patrol’s focus must be on preventing illegal entry,” said Guyant.
While Border Patrol agents have the discretion to bend some rules in emergency situations, they typically have to comply with all laws affecting an area they want to access. In designated wilderness areas, for example, that would mean traveling only on foot or horseback.
Kim Thorsen, an Interior Department law enforcement official, testified that Border Patrol agents do have the latitude to do their jobs under the current setup.
“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.
In April, the Government Accountability Office reported the agreement had its flaws and the agencies were not always in full cooperation, but that most of the supervising officers surveyed said federal land laws were not affecting their areas’ security.
But Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher from Hereford, Ariz., told the committee he’s witnessed the impact of federal land laws on border security.
Thrasher, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association board member, said that more than once he’s had immigrants “crawl through the cat door” to spend the night in his locked barn.
Republicans on the committee said the bill was an attempt at keeping citizens like Thrasher safe, not a way of granting DHS unlimited power.
“All we’re trying to do is protect our nation, protect the people of the United States,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Leshy — referencing the unchecked power of the British king who moved the U.S. to declare its independence — said those who oppose the bill are also trying to protect the people.
“1505 would make DHS the George III of our age,” he said.
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c6544b68f1146229745.txt
July 12, 2011
by Matthew Trotter
A bill that would grant the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to federal lands near the border was sharply criticized Friday for giving the department unchecked authority.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would let DHS waive 36 environmental-protection laws for patrol activities within 100 miles of U.S. borders.
Opponents of the legislation went so far as to call the bill, HR 1505, “particularly stupid” during Friday’s hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. They called it overly broad and said it opened the door for DHS to completely disregard environmental-protection laws.
“1505 may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who represents Nogales and Rio Rico in Congress.
John Leshy, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, testified that the legislation would make DHS “immune from review by the courts, except for constitutional claims.”
Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.
“There’s a problem here in that Border Patrol is being restricted,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the bill’s sponsor. “They are not the problem.”
The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.
Claude Guyant, founder of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the current system is an unnecessary distraction.
“Border Patrol’s focus must be on preventing illegal entry,” said Guyant.
While Border Patrol agents have the discretion to bend some rules in emergency situations, they typically have to comply with all laws affecting an area they want to access. In designated wilderness areas, for example, that would mean traveling only on foot or horseback.
Kim Thorsen, an Interior Department law enforcement official, testified that Border Patrol agents do have the latitude to do their jobs under the current setup.
“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.
In April, the Government Accountability Office reported the agreement had its flaws and the agencies were not always in full cooperation, but that most of the supervising officers surveyed said federal land laws were not affecting their areas’ security.
But Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher from Hereford, Ariz., told the committee he’s witnessed the impact of federal land laws on border security.
Thrasher, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association board member, said that more than once he’s had immigrants “crawl through the cat door” to spend the night in his locked barn.
Republicans on the committee said the bill was an attempt at keeping citizens like Thrasher safe, not a way of granting DHS unlimited power.
“All we’re trying to do is protect our nation, protect the people of the United States,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Leshy — referencing the unchecked power of the British king who moved the U.S. to declare its independence — said those who oppose the bill are also trying to protect the people.
“1505 would make DHS the George III of our age,” he said.
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c6544b68f1146229745.txt
Bill proposes Homeland Security takeover of National Seashore, coastal locations
Cape Cod Day
July 14, 2011
by Kaimi Rose Lum
PROVINCETOWN — A bill proposing to give the Dept. of Homeland Security ultimate control over federal lands located along maritime and international borders, including Cape Cod National Seashore, is making its rounds in the U.S. House of Representatives.
HR Bill 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up “monitoring equipment” in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.
The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.
Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill in April. It was referred to the House committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Homeland Security, and on Friday, July 8, had its first hearing before the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, of which Bishop is chair.
Although it’s in its early phases, the proposed law has already met with strong criticism from Lynn Scarlett, a former deputy Interior secretary under President George W. Bush. And a spokesperson for Congressman William Keating (10th District) said Tuesday that the bill was in need of further clarification.
“While HR 1505 is just starting to be reviewed by the appropriate committees and as such, is subject to extensive modification, Congressman Keating believes the legislation in its current form needs to be clarified so as to appropriately assess the border security risk levels of various locations throughout the country and balance our national security against other vital protections, such as environmental safeguards, which should not be discarded haphazardly,” said Lauren Amendolaro, communications director for Keating.
Keating currently sits on the House committee on Homeland Security.
The Pew Environment Group has condemned the bill, calling it a “sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws” that has little to do with accomplishing the goal of national security.
“Instead, the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations,” including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.
Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
The text of the bill states that its purpose is to “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/visitor_guide/cape_cod_national_seashore/x593341642/Bill-proposes-Homeland-Security-takeover-of-National-Seashore-coastal-locations#axzz1ScNmMvJI
July 14, 2011
by Kaimi Rose Lum
PROVINCETOWN — A bill proposing to give the Dept. of Homeland Security ultimate control over federal lands located along maritime and international borders, including Cape Cod National Seashore, is making its rounds in the U.S. House of Representatives.
HR Bill 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up “monitoring equipment” in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.
The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.
Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill in April. It was referred to the House committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Homeland Security, and on Friday, July 8, had its first hearing before the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, of which Bishop is chair.
Although it’s in its early phases, the proposed law has already met with strong criticism from Lynn Scarlett, a former deputy Interior secretary under President George W. Bush. And a spokesperson for Congressman William Keating (10th District) said Tuesday that the bill was in need of further clarification.
“While HR 1505 is just starting to be reviewed by the appropriate committees and as such, is subject to extensive modification, Congressman Keating believes the legislation in its current form needs to be clarified so as to appropriately assess the border security risk levels of various locations throughout the country and balance our national security against other vital protections, such as environmental safeguards, which should not be discarded haphazardly,” said Lauren Amendolaro, communications director for Keating.
Keating currently sits on the House committee on Homeland Security.
The Pew Environment Group has condemned the bill, calling it a “sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws” that has little to do with accomplishing the goal of national security.
“Instead, the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations,” including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.
Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
The text of the bill states that its purpose is to “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/visitor_guide/cape_cod_national_seashore/x593341642/Bill-proposes-Homeland-Security-takeover-of-National-Seashore-coastal-locations#axzz1ScNmMvJI
Congress' border security bill could have big impact in Maine
Sun Journal
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
Pew skewers border-security bill that would roll back environmental laws on public lands
Colorado Independent
July 8, 2011
by David O. Williams
Pew Environment Group officials on Thursday said a proposed U.S. House bill aimed at increasing border security gives “unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands …”
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505), debated Thursday by the House Natural Resources Committee, would allow the Department of Homeland Security to override 36 environmental laws and other types of laws governing the management of federal, state and private lands within 100 miles of the United States border and coastline.
“While we strongly support making America’s borders more secure, this sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws has little to do with accomplishing that goal,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group’s director of U.S. public lands.
Introduced in April by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, H.R. 1505 would “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
Bishop is chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and his bill would apply to 10 states in their entirety, including all of Hawaii and Florida (see detailed Pew map).
“The proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations including Glacier National Park, the Florida Everglades and beaches along Cape Cod, the Great Lakes and the California coastline,” Danowitz said.
All in the name of border security, the bill would waive the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Park Service Organic Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
“We urge lawmakers to reject this and any future attempt to undercut fundamental environmental protections that have been on the books for decades,” Danowitz concluded.
http://coloradoindependent.com/93440/pew-skewers-border-security-bill-that-would-roll-back-environmental-laws-on-public-lands
July 8, 2011
by David O. Williams
Pew Environment Group officials on Thursday said a proposed U.S. House bill aimed at increasing border security gives “unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands …”
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505), debated Thursday by the House Natural Resources Committee, would allow the Department of Homeland Security to override 36 environmental laws and other types of laws governing the management of federal, state and private lands within 100 miles of the United States border and coastline.
“While we strongly support making America’s borders more secure, this sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws has little to do with accomplishing that goal,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group’s director of U.S. public lands.
Introduced in April by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, H.R. 1505 would “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
Bishop is chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and his bill would apply to 10 states in their entirety, including all of Hawaii and Florida (see detailed Pew map).
“The proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations including Glacier National Park, the Florida Everglades and beaches along Cape Cod, the Great Lakes and the California coastline,” Danowitz said.
All in the name of border security, the bill would waive the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Park Service Organic Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
“We urge lawmakers to reject this and any future attempt to undercut fundamental environmental protections that have been on the books for decades,” Danowitz concluded.
http://coloradoindependent.com/93440/pew-skewers-border-security-bill-that-would-roll-back-environmental-laws-on-public-lands
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Bishop bill seeks to waive environmental rules for border patrol
Salt Lake Tribune
April 14, 2011
by Thomas Burr
Washington • Border patrol agents would be able to cross into sensitive wilderness areas, build and maintain roads, construct fences and patrol the areas with vehicles without fear of breaking environmental laws under a bill introduced this week again by Rep. Rob Bishop.
The Utah Republican, chairman of the House Natural Resources subcommittee over federal lands, says his bill will allow border agents to secure the border without what he says are barriers — literally physical barriers in some cases — put up by public land managers.
Bishop, who toured the border in Arizona last year and plans to go next week as well, is holding a joint hearing Friday with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to look at border security along the U.S.-Mexico line.
He says federal lands along the U.S. border are a “haven of criminal activity” and environmental laws meant to protect the lands are actually allowing border crossers to destroy them.
“I have seen firsthand the damage that has been done to our federal lands from trash, foot traffic and man-made fires,” Bishop said in reintroducing the bill he proposed last session. “Providing Border Patrol with the necessary access to deter and apprehend those who cross through our federal lands illegally would deliver the greatest benefit to both national security and the long-term health of our federal lands.”
Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, under which border patrol operates, said the department doesn’t comment on pending legislation. But he noted that DHS is fully committed to cooperating with Interior and the Forest Service, which also has lands abutting the international border.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff also declined to comment on pending legislation but noted that the department’s work with Homeland Security has allowed basic border security infrastructure to be strategically located on federal lands to meet DHS’ goals.
Interior, Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Agriculture entered into an agreement in 2006 that allows border patrol to enter sensitive wilderness areas in pursuit of criminal activity, though Bishop has contended the deal still hampers the ability to secure the border.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51622503-90/border-lands-federal-patrol.html.csp
April 14, 2011
by Thomas Burr
Washington • Border patrol agents would be able to cross into sensitive wilderness areas, build and maintain roads, construct fences and patrol the areas with vehicles without fear of breaking environmental laws under a bill introduced this week again by Rep. Rob Bishop.
The Utah Republican, chairman of the House Natural Resources subcommittee over federal lands, says his bill will allow border agents to secure the border without what he says are barriers — literally physical barriers in some cases — put up by public land managers.
Bishop, who toured the border in Arizona last year and plans to go next week as well, is holding a joint hearing Friday with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to look at border security along the U.S.-Mexico line.
He says federal lands along the U.S. border are a “haven of criminal activity” and environmental laws meant to protect the lands are actually allowing border crossers to destroy them.
“I have seen firsthand the damage that has been done to our federal lands from trash, foot traffic and man-made fires,” Bishop said in reintroducing the bill he proposed last session. “Providing Border Patrol with the necessary access to deter and apprehend those who cross through our federal lands illegally would deliver the greatest benefit to both national security and the long-term health of our federal lands.”
Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, under which border patrol operates, said the department doesn’t comment on pending legislation. But he noted that DHS is fully committed to cooperating with Interior and the Forest Service, which also has lands abutting the international border.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff also declined to comment on pending legislation but noted that the department’s work with Homeland Security has allowed basic border security infrastructure to be strategically located on federal lands to meet DHS’ goals.
Interior, Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Agriculture entered into an agreement in 2006 that allows border patrol to enter sensitive wilderness areas in pursuit of criminal activity, though Bishop has contended the deal still hampers the ability to secure the border.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51622503-90/border-lands-federal-patrol.html.csp
Monday, June 15, 2009
Court refuses to hear border fence case
The Hill
June 15, 2009
by Reid Wilson
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that questioned whether the federal government could supersede state and local laws blocking a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
The case tested the constitutionality of a provision in a broad 2005 law that created national standards for state driver’s license requirements. The provision in question would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive local legal requirements that stand in the way of the 700-mile border fence.
Attorneys for the petitioners, led by El Paso County, Texas, argued the REAL ID Act constituted a delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch that amounted to an abdication of responsibilities.
The act allows DHS to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in constructing the fence. But it also gives DHS the "authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads[.]"
Congress established a limited and streamlined judicial review, which petitioners cited in their claims of unconstitutionality.
Under President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff approved two waivers that disburden fence planners of having to comply with "all federal, state or other laws, regulations and legal requirements" of construction.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a brief for the Justice Department opposing the petition, arguing the county and local governments lacked the standing to bring the case.
The justices themselves took a considerable amount of time in mulling the case. The subject was brought up in conference eight times, most recently last Thursday, before justices voted not to accept the case. It is the second time in a year justices had declined to hear challenges to the border fence.
The court announced it would take up four cases, including one examining the constitutional limits on states when it comes to restoring storm-eroded beaches, in a case originating in Florida.
The court declined to hear another Florida case, which argued that five alleged Cuban spies could not get a fair trial in Miami because of anti-Cuban sentiment in the area.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-refuses-to-hear-border-fence-case-2009-06-15.html
June 15, 2009
by Reid Wilson
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that questioned whether the federal government could supersede state and local laws blocking a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
The case tested the constitutionality of a provision in a broad 2005 law that created national standards for state driver’s license requirements. The provision in question would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive local legal requirements that stand in the way of the 700-mile border fence.
Attorneys for the petitioners, led by El Paso County, Texas, argued the REAL ID Act constituted a delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch that amounted to an abdication of responsibilities.
The act allows DHS to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in constructing the fence. But it also gives DHS the "authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads[.]"
Congress established a limited and streamlined judicial review, which petitioners cited in their claims of unconstitutionality.
Under President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff approved two waivers that disburden fence planners of having to comply with "all federal, state or other laws, regulations and legal requirements" of construction.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a brief for the Justice Department opposing the petition, arguing the county and local governments lacked the standing to bring the case.
The justices themselves took a considerable amount of time in mulling the case. The subject was brought up in conference eight times, most recently last Thursday, before justices voted not to accept the case. It is the second time in a year justices had declined to hear challenges to the border fence.
The court announced it would take up four cases, including one examining the constitutional limits on states when it comes to restoring storm-eroded beaches, in a case originating in Florida.
The court declined to hear another Florida case, which argued that five alleged Cuban spies could not get a fair trial in Miami because of anti-Cuban sentiment in the area.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-refuses-to-hear-border-fence-case-2009-06-15.html
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Security snub?
The Monitor
January 10, 2008
Local law enforcement leaders said Friday they knew little of a federal plan that would create a "surge" of civilian and military force along the border, should Mexican drug violence overflow into the United States.
Frequent reports of widespread murders and kidnappings in Mexico prompted Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to order the contingency plan last summer in case that activity spread north, a department spokeswoman said.
But local and federal law enforcement agents operating in the Rio Grande Valley seem to have been left out of the strategy's planning stages.
"Nobody on the border even knows about this," Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño said. "It's not like we're living in the Wild West and people are killing each other left and right. I am almost sure (Chertoff) didn't consult any local law enforcement to develop that evaluation."
The plan - first reported Thursday in The New York Times - would be activated only if needed by local authorities, said Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.
"We completed a contingency plan for border violence, so if we did get a significant spillover, we have a surge ... capability to bring in not only our own assets but even to work with," the Defense Department, Chertoff told the Times.
THE PLAN
Suspected drug cartel violence claimed more than 5,300 lives across Mexico last year, according to that country's authorities.
Mexican border cities across from the Valley had their share of cartel-related violence and arrests during 2008, but not to the same degree as cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, where killings and kidnappings became a part of daily life.
For about a year, Mexican President Felipe Calderón has directed military troops to patrol cities across his country to combat the violence.
The Homeland Security contingency plan follows the same model used during other times of crisis, such as hurricanes and other natural disasters, and calls for the deployment of additional federal agents or military personnel to the border should local law enforcement request it, department officials said.
Federal law prevents the military from taking over law enforcement duties on U.S. soil without Congressional approval.
"The plan doesn't supersede any authorities," DHS spokeswoman Kudwa said. "At this point, local authorities have had the situation in hand."
But Treviño said he sees the plan as an attempt by the federal government to interfere with local law enforcement.
"It is obvious it is an attempt to meddle in state and local problems, and I don't think it's his job," he said of the Homeland Security secretary.
‘DETACHED FROM REALITY'
Parts of the plan have already been activated, Kudwa said, without giving specifics.
But some local federal agents - speaking on background - said they had not even heard of it.
Homeland Security policymakers in the nation's capital "hardly ever consult with local police forces," said Tony Payan, a border violence expert and professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, across the border from Juarez.
"It is very typical for Washington, D.C., to determine what the security threat is - sometimes misguidedly - and then to come up with a plan that may be detached from reality," he said.
Department officials did talk to state leaders about the strategy, however.
Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, told The Associated Press that state officials were briefed on the plan but were not consulted beforehand about a strategy to fight Mexican drug cartels on the 1,254-mile border the country shares with Texas.
State leaders have their own specific security plans for each area of the Texas border, should violence from Mexico become an issue.
Cesinger declined to detail those plans Friday.
TIME FOR CHANGE?
But the controversial border violence contingency plan could be up for review as soon as Chertoff steps down from his post in less than two weeks.
President-elect Barack Obama has nominated Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to succeed Chertoff as the Homeland Security secretary. Her confirmation hearings are set to begin in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.
Obama, meanwhile, is set to meet with Calderón on Monday to discuss the drug war and immigration issues.
Should Napolitano be confirmed, she would likely change how the department handles border security issues, Payan said.
For Sheriff Treviño, that may be a silver lining.
"We will not have to worry about Mr. Chertoff and this ridiculous plan of his after the 20th" of January, he said.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/enforcement_21912___article.html/local_federal.html
January 10, 2008
Local law enforcement leaders said Friday they knew little of a federal plan that would create a "surge" of civilian and military force along the border, should Mexican drug violence overflow into the United States.
Frequent reports of widespread murders and kidnappings in Mexico prompted Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to order the contingency plan last summer in case that activity spread north, a department spokeswoman said.
But local and federal law enforcement agents operating in the Rio Grande Valley seem to have been left out of the strategy's planning stages.
"Nobody on the border even knows about this," Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño said. "It's not like we're living in the Wild West and people are killing each other left and right. I am almost sure (Chertoff) didn't consult any local law enforcement to develop that evaluation."
The plan - first reported Thursday in The New York Times - would be activated only if needed by local authorities, said Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.
"We completed a contingency plan for border violence, so if we did get a significant spillover, we have a surge ... capability to bring in not only our own assets but even to work with," the Defense Department, Chertoff told the Times.
THE PLAN
Suspected drug cartel violence claimed more than 5,300 lives across Mexico last year, according to that country's authorities.
Mexican border cities across from the Valley had their share of cartel-related violence and arrests during 2008, but not to the same degree as cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, where killings and kidnappings became a part of daily life.
For about a year, Mexican President Felipe Calderón has directed military troops to patrol cities across his country to combat the violence.
The Homeland Security contingency plan follows the same model used during other times of crisis, such as hurricanes and other natural disasters, and calls for the deployment of additional federal agents or military personnel to the border should local law enforcement request it, department officials said.
Federal law prevents the military from taking over law enforcement duties on U.S. soil without Congressional approval.
"The plan doesn't supersede any authorities," DHS spokeswoman Kudwa said. "At this point, local authorities have had the situation in hand."
But Treviño said he sees the plan as an attempt by the federal government to interfere with local law enforcement.
"It is obvious it is an attempt to meddle in state and local problems, and I don't think it's his job," he said of the Homeland Security secretary.
‘DETACHED FROM REALITY'
Parts of the plan have already been activated, Kudwa said, without giving specifics.
But some local federal agents - speaking on background - said they had not even heard of it.
Homeland Security policymakers in the nation's capital "hardly ever consult with local police forces," said Tony Payan, a border violence expert and professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, across the border from Juarez.
"It is very typical for Washington, D.C., to determine what the security threat is - sometimes misguidedly - and then to come up with a plan that may be detached from reality," he said.
Department officials did talk to state leaders about the strategy, however.
Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, told The Associated Press that state officials were briefed on the plan but were not consulted beforehand about a strategy to fight Mexican drug cartels on the 1,254-mile border the country shares with Texas.
State leaders have their own specific security plans for each area of the Texas border, should violence from Mexico become an issue.
Cesinger declined to detail those plans Friday.
TIME FOR CHANGE?
But the controversial border violence contingency plan could be up for review as soon as Chertoff steps down from his post in less than two weeks.
President-elect Barack Obama has nominated Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to succeed Chertoff as the Homeland Security secretary. Her confirmation hearings are set to begin in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.
Obama, meanwhile, is set to meet with Calderón on Monday to discuss the drug war and immigration issues.
Should Napolitano be confirmed, she would likely change how the department handles border security issues, Payan said.
For Sheriff Treviño, that may be a silver lining.
"We will not have to worry about Mr. Chertoff and this ridiculous plan of his after the 20th" of January, he said.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/enforcement_21912___article.html/local_federal.html
Feds have plan if Mexico drug violence spills over
Associated Press
January 10, 2008
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — If Mexican drug violence spills across the U.S. border, Homeland Security officials say they have a contingency plan to assist border areas that includes bringing in the military.
"It's a common sense extension of our continued work with our state, local, and tribal partners in securing the southwest border," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Friday.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who described the contingency plan in an interview with The New York Times this week, said he ordered specific plans to be drawn up this summer as violence in Mexico continued to mount.
The plan includes federal homeland security agents helping local authorities and maybe even military assistance from the Department of Defense, possibly including aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to go to areas overwhelmed with violence, authorities said.
Kudwa would not give specifics on the so-called "surge" plan, but said it does not create any new authorities.
In the last year, more than 5,000 people have been killed and police and military officials have become common targets for violent drug cartels who are fighting with each other and the government for control of lucrative drug and human smuggling routes across Mexico.
More than one-fifth of the deaths have occurred in Ciudad Juarez, the hardscrabble border city just across the Rio Grande from El Paso.
Officials in Mexico reported about 1,600 homicides in Juarez in 2007 and at least 20 people have been killed in the first nine days of this year.
To date, there has been no significant violent spillover from the drug war in Mexico, but U.S. authorities have spent a tense year watching and waiting.
In October, Hidalgo County officials issued fully automatic weapons to deputies patrolling the river in the Rio Grande Valley. Sheriff Lupe Trevino also authorized his deputies to return fire across the border if smugglers or other criminals took aim at them.
In El Paso, the country's largest border community and one of the safest metropolitan areas in the nation, Sheriff Richard Wiles said that while he doesn't anticipate the city or county being overwhelmed by border violence he applauded the DHS plan to quickly respond if the worst should happen.
"I think it's appropriate for the federal government to have a contingency plan all the way up to the worst case scenario," Wiles said.
The contingency plan was news to most border states.
"At this point, DHS has not contacted the California National Guard to bring any forces ... to support first responders, i.e. (U.S.) Border Patrol, at the border in California," California National Guard spokesman Jonathan Guibord said Friday.
He said National Guard officials in California know only "what's been publicized" about the plan, but added that state military officials routinely train and prepare to respond to any order from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the president.
Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said Texas officials were briefed on the plan but were not consulted beforehand about a plan to fight Mexican drug cartels on the 2,000-mile U.S. border, more than half of which is in Texas.
Cesinger said the state has its own specific security plans for each area of the Texas border should violence from Mexico become an issue. She declined to give specifics of those plans.
Officials with New Mexico's Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said they are in constant contact with federal Homeland Security officials but weren't aware of any specific security plan that could include Department of Defense assets.
"We haven't seen a specific operational plan for a specific region or specific threat. The use of Defense Department resources ... would have to be an extreme situation," said Tim Manning, the New Mexico Homeland Security director.
Homeland Security officials did not respond to questions about which local or state agencies were notified about the surge plan.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivNbIwMtQTgwPcKIGQUdhnjE10pAD95K8IMO0
January 10, 2008
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — If Mexican drug violence spills across the U.S. border, Homeland Security officials say they have a contingency plan to assist border areas that includes bringing in the military.
"It's a common sense extension of our continued work with our state, local, and tribal partners in securing the southwest border," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Friday.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who described the contingency plan in an interview with The New York Times this week, said he ordered specific plans to be drawn up this summer as violence in Mexico continued to mount.
The plan includes federal homeland security agents helping local authorities and maybe even military assistance from the Department of Defense, possibly including aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to go to areas overwhelmed with violence, authorities said.
Kudwa would not give specifics on the so-called "surge" plan, but said it does not create any new authorities.
In the last year, more than 5,000 people have been killed and police and military officials have become common targets for violent drug cartels who are fighting with each other and the government for control of lucrative drug and human smuggling routes across Mexico.
More than one-fifth of the deaths have occurred in Ciudad Juarez, the hardscrabble border city just across the Rio Grande from El Paso.
Officials in Mexico reported about 1,600 homicides in Juarez in 2007 and at least 20 people have been killed in the first nine days of this year.
To date, there has been no significant violent spillover from the drug war in Mexico, but U.S. authorities have spent a tense year watching and waiting.
In October, Hidalgo County officials issued fully automatic weapons to deputies patrolling the river in the Rio Grande Valley. Sheriff Lupe Trevino also authorized his deputies to return fire across the border if smugglers or other criminals took aim at them.
In El Paso, the country's largest border community and one of the safest metropolitan areas in the nation, Sheriff Richard Wiles said that while he doesn't anticipate the city or county being overwhelmed by border violence he applauded the DHS plan to quickly respond if the worst should happen.
"I think it's appropriate for the federal government to have a contingency plan all the way up to the worst case scenario," Wiles said.
The contingency plan was news to most border states.
"At this point, DHS has not contacted the California National Guard to bring any forces ... to support first responders, i.e. (U.S.) Border Patrol, at the border in California," California National Guard spokesman Jonathan Guibord said Friday.
He said National Guard officials in California know only "what's been publicized" about the plan, but added that state military officials routinely train and prepare to respond to any order from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the president.
Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said Texas officials were briefed on the plan but were not consulted beforehand about a plan to fight Mexican drug cartels on the 2,000-mile U.S. border, more than half of which is in Texas.
Cesinger said the state has its own specific security plans for each area of the Texas border should violence from Mexico become an issue. She declined to give specifics of those plans.
Officials with New Mexico's Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said they are in constant contact with federal Homeland Security officials but weren't aware of any specific security plan that could include Department of Defense assets.
"We haven't seen a specific operational plan for a specific region or specific threat. The use of Defense Department resources ... would have to be an extreme situation," said Tim Manning, the New Mexico Homeland Security director.
Homeland Security officials did not respond to questions about which local or state agencies were notified about the surge plan.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivNbIwMtQTgwPcKIGQUdhnjE10pAD95K8IMO0
Thursday, January 8, 2009
U.S. Plans Border ‘Surge’ Against Any Drug Wars
New York Times
January 7, 2009
The soaring level of violence in Mexico resulting from the drug wars there has led the United States to develop plans for a “surge” of civilian and perhaps even military law enforcement should the bloodshed spread across the border, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
Mr. Chertoff said the criminal activity in Mexico, which has caused more than 5,300 deaths in the last year, had long troubled American authorities. But it reached a point last summer, he said, where he ordered specific plans to confront in this country the kind of shootouts and other mayhem that in Mexico have killed members of warring drug cartels, law enforcement officials and bystanders, often not far from the border.
“We completed a contingency plan for border violence, so if we did get a significant spillover, we have a surge — if I may use that word — capability to bring in not only our own assets but even to work with” the Defense Department, Mr. Chertoff said in a telephone interview.
Officials of the Homeland Security Department said the plan called for aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to converge on border trouble spots, with the size of the force depending on the scale of the problem. Military forces would be called upon if civilian agencies like the Border Patrol and local law enforcement were overwhelmed, but the officials said military involvement was considered unlikely.
Mr. Chertoff has expressed concern in recent months about the violence in Mexico, but the contingency plan has not been publicly debated, and the department has made no announcement of it. Department officials said Mr. Chertoff had mentioned it only in passing.
Aides to members of the House Homeland Security Committee, which oversees the department and has often clashed with Mr. Chertoff over his border policies, said Wednesday that they had heard little about the plan, though they welcomed it.
“We support almost anything to secure our border,” said Dena Graziano, a spokeswoman for the committee.
Mr. Chertoff said that he had advised Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to succeed him as homeland security secretary, that “I put helping Mexico get control of its borders and its organized crime problems” at the very top of the list of national security concerns.
Ms. Napolitano’s confirmation hearing begins next week. Her office denied requests for an interview.
In the wide-ranging interview with Mr. Chertoff, two weeks before he leaves office, he suggested that his controversial efforts to rapidly build a fence along nearly 700 miles of the Mexican border, as well as his bolstering the size of the Border Patrol, were part of the push to defend against drug violence, not just to control illegal immigration.
“That’s another reason, frankly, why I have been insistent on putting in the infrastructure and fencing and stuff like that,” he said. “Because I don’t want, God forbid, if there is ever a spillover of significance, to have denied the Border Patrol anything they need to protect the lives and safety of American citizens.”
He said the Border Patrol had reached a target of more than 18,000 agents by December, though some are still in training and not yet patrolling. Officials of the agents’ union contend that the rapid buildup, to a size double that of less than a decade ago, and the agency’s turnover have resulted in a largely inexperienced corps.
Fencing has gone up on 580 miles of the 2,000-mile border, short of the planned 661 miles, but Mr. Chertoff said he expected it to reach the final mark sometime in the coming months.
And though he said he regretted not seeking more advice initially from the Border Patrol on developing the “virtual fence,” the much-publicized and much-delayed system of cameras and sensors to supplement border personnel, Mr. Chertoff predicted that it would gain widespread use in the coming years.
Mr. Chertoff said the department’s efforts to increase enforcement at the border and conduct immigration raids at workplaces had led to the lowest level of illegal immigration in decades, though he acknowledged that the recession had also had an impact on the number of illegal border crossings.
He expressed no regret over the department’s tactics, often criticized by immigrants’ advocates as draconian and a cause of family separation, and disputed critics who suggest that the department is sprawling and in need of “reform.”
Mr. Obama used that word in introducing Ms. Napolitano and describing what she would bring to the job of overseeing a department created in 2003 out of 22 agencies and now employing more than 200,000 people, making it the third-largest cabinet-level department.
There has been speculation in Washington that the Obama administration will reinstate the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an independent body outside of the department.
But Mr. Chertoff said that as part of the Homeland Security apparatus, FEMA had redeemed itself after an admittedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. He pointed to more recent disaster responses, including the generally praised federal reaction to Hurricane Gustav on the Gulf Coast last summer.“What I would not do,” he said, “is start to monkey around with the major working parts, because that is only going to set us back.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08chertoff.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
January 7, 2009
The soaring level of violence in Mexico resulting from the drug wars there has led the United States to develop plans for a “surge” of civilian and perhaps even military law enforcement should the bloodshed spread across the border, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
Mr. Chertoff said the criminal activity in Mexico, which has caused more than 5,300 deaths in the last year, had long troubled American authorities. But it reached a point last summer, he said, where he ordered specific plans to confront in this country the kind of shootouts and other mayhem that in Mexico have killed members of warring drug cartels, law enforcement officials and bystanders, often not far from the border.
“We completed a contingency plan for border violence, so if we did get a significant spillover, we have a surge — if I may use that word — capability to bring in not only our own assets but even to work with” the Defense Department, Mr. Chertoff said in a telephone interview.
Officials of the Homeland Security Department said the plan called for aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to converge on border trouble spots, with the size of the force depending on the scale of the problem. Military forces would be called upon if civilian agencies like the Border Patrol and local law enforcement were overwhelmed, but the officials said military involvement was considered unlikely.
Mr. Chertoff has expressed concern in recent months about the violence in Mexico, but the contingency plan has not been publicly debated, and the department has made no announcement of it. Department officials said Mr. Chertoff had mentioned it only in passing.
Aides to members of the House Homeland Security Committee, which oversees the department and has often clashed with Mr. Chertoff over his border policies, said Wednesday that they had heard little about the plan, though they welcomed it.
“We support almost anything to secure our border,” said Dena Graziano, a spokeswoman for the committee.
Mr. Chertoff said that he had advised Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to succeed him as homeland security secretary, that “I put helping Mexico get control of its borders and its organized crime problems” at the very top of the list of national security concerns.
Ms. Napolitano’s confirmation hearing begins next week. Her office denied requests for an interview.
In the wide-ranging interview with Mr. Chertoff, two weeks before he leaves office, he suggested that his controversial efforts to rapidly build a fence along nearly 700 miles of the Mexican border, as well as his bolstering the size of the Border Patrol, were part of the push to defend against drug violence, not just to control illegal immigration.
“That’s another reason, frankly, why I have been insistent on putting in the infrastructure and fencing and stuff like that,” he said. “Because I don’t want, God forbid, if there is ever a spillover of significance, to have denied the Border Patrol anything they need to protect the lives and safety of American citizens.”
He said the Border Patrol had reached a target of more than 18,000 agents by December, though some are still in training and not yet patrolling. Officials of the agents’ union contend that the rapid buildup, to a size double that of less than a decade ago, and the agency’s turnover have resulted in a largely inexperienced corps.
Fencing has gone up on 580 miles of the 2,000-mile border, short of the planned 661 miles, but Mr. Chertoff said he expected it to reach the final mark sometime in the coming months.
And though he said he regretted not seeking more advice initially from the Border Patrol on developing the “virtual fence,” the much-publicized and much-delayed system of cameras and sensors to supplement border personnel, Mr. Chertoff predicted that it would gain widespread use in the coming years.
Mr. Chertoff said the department’s efforts to increase enforcement at the border and conduct immigration raids at workplaces had led to the lowest level of illegal immigration in decades, though he acknowledged that the recession had also had an impact on the number of illegal border crossings.
He expressed no regret over the department’s tactics, often criticized by immigrants’ advocates as draconian and a cause of family separation, and disputed critics who suggest that the department is sprawling and in need of “reform.”
Mr. Obama used that word in introducing Ms. Napolitano and describing what she would bring to the job of overseeing a department created in 2003 out of 22 agencies and now employing more than 200,000 people, making it the third-largest cabinet-level department.
There has been speculation in Washington that the Obama administration will reinstate the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an independent body outside of the department.
But Mr. Chertoff said that as part of the Homeland Security apparatus, FEMA had redeemed itself after an admittedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. He pointed to more recent disaster responses, including the generally praised federal reaction to Hurricane Gustav on the Gulf Coast last summer.“What I would not do,” he said, “is start to monkey around with the major working parts, because that is only going to set us back.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08chertoff.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Friday, December 12, 2008
Texas county files appeal to stop border fence
Associated Press
December 11, 2008
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — A Texas county filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in the latest bid to stop construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In asking the court to review a lawsuit previously dismissed by a federal court judge, lawyers for El Paso County contend that U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff overstepped his legal authority when he waived 37 federal laws that could have slowed or blocked construction of fencing along the border.
Attorneys for the county also allege that Chertoff violated the 10th Amendment, which grants states the right to enforce laws neither prohibited by nor delegated to the federal government.
Congress authorized the fence to help secure the border and slow illegal immigration, and then gave Chertoff the power to waive the federal laws in 2005.
Previous legal challenges to the waiver authority, which includes a lawsuit by several environmental groups in San Diego, failed to gain traction in courts. The Supreme Court also declined to hear border fence challenges.
El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez said Wednesday he believed the 10th Amendment protects the county and other jurisdictions from Chertoff's action.
"From our point of view, we think that we have made some compelling arguments about why the Supreme Court should take up our case," Rodriguez said. "This case is a much more significant case than (the San Diego) one. That involved fewer laws. It wasn't anywhere near the 37 laws. The secretary also waived any state and local laws that are derived from or related to those statutes."
Homeland Security officials said they expect to prevail.
"Every time a group has challenged our use of the waiver authority in court, the court has ruled that the waiver was lawful and constitutional. We expect the same result here," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said in an e-mail. "Groups like this one claim to be interested in border security — so long as the measures taken to protect the border do not affect them."
Cory Briggs, a San Diego lawyer who represented the environmental groups, said the Supreme Court's rejection of border fence claims suggests the court wasn't interested in the border.
Denise Gilman, a clinical law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said the 10th Amendment was "one of the most under litigated portions" of the Constitution. She said El Paso's suit, based on the court's history, stood a "50/50 probability, and it may even be lower than that."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jE_bOUpQb6MxrxSQno3N6gEdY-MAD9509BSO4
December 11, 2008
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — A Texas county filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in the latest bid to stop construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In asking the court to review a lawsuit previously dismissed by a federal court judge, lawyers for El Paso County contend that U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff overstepped his legal authority when he waived 37 federal laws that could have slowed or blocked construction of fencing along the border.
Attorneys for the county also allege that Chertoff violated the 10th Amendment, which grants states the right to enforce laws neither prohibited by nor delegated to the federal government.
Congress authorized the fence to help secure the border and slow illegal immigration, and then gave Chertoff the power to waive the federal laws in 2005.
Previous legal challenges to the waiver authority, which includes a lawsuit by several environmental groups in San Diego, failed to gain traction in courts. The Supreme Court also declined to hear border fence challenges.
El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez said Wednesday he believed the 10th Amendment protects the county and other jurisdictions from Chertoff's action.
"From our point of view, we think that we have made some compelling arguments about why the Supreme Court should take up our case," Rodriguez said. "This case is a much more significant case than (the San Diego) one. That involved fewer laws. It wasn't anywhere near the 37 laws. The secretary also waived any state and local laws that are derived from or related to those statutes."
Homeland Security officials said they expect to prevail.
"Every time a group has challenged our use of the waiver authority in court, the court has ruled that the waiver was lawful and constitutional. We expect the same result here," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said in an e-mail. "Groups like this one claim to be interested in border security — so long as the measures taken to protect the border do not affect them."
Cory Briggs, a San Diego lawyer who represented the environmental groups, said the Supreme Court's rejection of border fence claims suggests the court wasn't interested in the border.
Denise Gilman, a clinical law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said the 10th Amendment was "one of the most under litigated portions" of the Constitution. She said El Paso's suit, based on the court's history, stood a "50/50 probability, and it may even be lower than that."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jE_bOUpQb6MxrxSQno3N6gEdY-MAD9509BSO4
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Border fence case sent to high court
El Paso Times
December 11, 2008
EL PASO -- El Paso County filed an appeal Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court asking whether the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Michael Chertoff, have the legal authority to disregard federal, state and local laws to build the border fence.
Congress in 2005 passed the Real ID Act granting Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security statutory authority to waive law to construct the border fence.
El Paso County Attorney José Rodríguez said Chertoff, through the Real ID Act, violated the Constitution and the 10th Amendment by broadly interpreting vague powers granted to him by Congress.
The 10th Amendment grants states the authority to create law if the Constitution hasn't already expressly delegates that authority to the federal government.
"We do think this does present for the court an opportunity to clarify for the national level what the authority is for declaring these kinds of waivers for the executive branch, and what circumstances you pre-empt state and local laws," Rodríguez said. "It was just kind of an unbridled authority that was given to the secretary."
Typically, when waiver authority has been granted to the executive branch by Congress, executive agencies were given specific parameters for which laws they may disregard, Rodríguez said.
Chertoff's authority to waive existing law has enabled him to disregard at least 37 federal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Protection Act, as well as state and local laws, to accelerate the construction of the fence.
The county, the city, the Tigua tribe, the local irrigation district and environmental groups in September sued Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that Chertoff's use of waivers to construct the fence was unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge Frank Montalvo dismissed the case, ruling that Congress constitutionally delegated its authority in waiver legislation.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11191056
December 11, 2008
EL PASO -- El Paso County filed an appeal Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court asking whether the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Michael Chertoff, have the legal authority to disregard federal, state and local laws to build the border fence.
Congress in 2005 passed the Real ID Act granting Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security statutory authority to waive law to construct the border fence.
El Paso County Attorney José Rodríguez said Chertoff, through the Real ID Act, violated the Constitution and the 10th Amendment by broadly interpreting vague powers granted to him by Congress.
The 10th Amendment grants states the authority to create law if the Constitution hasn't already expressly delegates that authority to the federal government.
"We do think this does present for the court an opportunity to clarify for the national level what the authority is for declaring these kinds of waivers for the executive branch, and what circumstances you pre-empt state and local laws," Rodríguez said. "It was just kind of an unbridled authority that was given to the secretary."
Typically, when waiver authority has been granted to the executive branch by Congress, executive agencies were given specific parameters for which laws they may disregard, Rodríguez said.
Chertoff's authority to waive existing law has enabled him to disregard at least 37 federal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Protection Act, as well as state and local laws, to accelerate the construction of the fence.
The county, the city, the Tigua tribe, the local irrigation district and environmental groups in September sued Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that Chertoff's use of waivers to construct the fence was unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge Frank Montalvo dismissed the case, ruling that Congress constitutionally delegated its authority in waiver legislation.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11191056
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)