Great Falls Tribune
November 19, 2011
by John S. Adams
HELENA — Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., continue to cast political stones over a controversial measure that would give the Department of Homeland Security "operational control" over federal lands along the United States' borders.
Tester and Rehberg are locked in what many political observers predict will be one of the toughest U.S. Senate races in the nation, and the so-called "border bill" has become one of the biggest issues of the campaign to date.
Tester believes Rehberg's co-sponsorship of House Resolution 1505 won't sit well with Montana voters who value public lands.
The measure would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection the authority to circumvent 36 federal environmental and wilderness laws in order to give the agency operational control over all federally owned lands within 100 miles of U.S. borders.
Supporters of the measure, including Rehberg, say it is a simple bill designed to break the bureaucratic gridlock and turf war between Customs and Border Protection and the federal agencies that manage public lands along the border. They say the measure gives Customs and Border Protection agents the tools necessary to track down and stop invaders, drug smugglers and other threats without getting mired in the red tape of environmental reviews and public comments.
The bill specifically authorizes Customs and Border Protection to engage in the following activities in remote areas — such as wilderness and national parks — where such activities currently are prohibited:
•Build and maintain roads
•Build fences
•Use motorized vehicles to patrol
•Install and operate surveillance equipment and sensors
•Use aircraft
•Build temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.
Opponents of the measure, including a hunting-and-angling group with ties to Tester, are attacking Rehberg in television ads and on the Internet, calling HR1505 "a federal land grab of the highest order." Critics of the bill say it threatens the health of protected ecosystems and wildlife, and could be used to lock the public out of federal lands without public input.
Rehberg's supporters say such criticism is politically motivated hogwash designed to scare voters.
They also accuse Tester of being a hypocrite on the issue, since he didn't oppose a 2009 Senate amendment that contained nearly identical language to the language at the core of HR1505.
The Senate in 2009 passed by unanimous consent an amendment to the 2010 Interior appropriations bills containing the following language:
"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security on public lands to achieve operational control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)) over the international land and maritime borders of the United States."
Rehberg's bill, as amended by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, contains this language:
"The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109—15 367)) over the international land borders of the United States."
Rehberg spokesman Jed Link said the 2009 amendment gives even broader, more sweeping authority to the Department of Homeland Security to do almost anything it wants. He said Rehberg's bill is an attempt to build on the work the Senate began in 2009, but that it specifically details what activities Customs and Border Protection is allowed to undertake in order to obtain "operational control."
"At the end of the day, we're still trying to do what the Senate was trying to do in 2009. We've learned a lot in the last few years and have a better idea about what works and what doesn't work, so the details of the legislation aren't exactly the same," Link said.
While the 2009 amendment prohibited the Department of the Interior from impeding, prohibiting or restricting Department of Homeland Security activities, it did not waive the agency's requirement to follow federal environmental laws when undertaking those activities.
Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy said the 2009 amendment was part of a one-year appropriations bill, and was aimed at addressing a specific, short-term problem.
Murphy said Congress concurred in 2009 that agreements between various federal land management agencies and Customs and Border Protection were not working, causing construction on a southern border fence to stall.
"The bill that passed the Senate was a short-term response to address a specific problem on the southern border back in 2009," Murphy said. "Congressman Rehberg's bill is a one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem. His plan completely overhauls border security by giving one department total control over public land in Montana."
"The fact is, in 2009, Senator Tester agreed with Denny that this was a problem that needed to be solved," Link said. "Jon Tester is the only one who has changed his mind. This is about national security and keeping Montana families safe — the stakes are too high for political games."
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20111120/NEWS01/111200303
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Environmental law waiver faces northern skeptics
Associated Press
November 13, 2011
by MATT GOURAS
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — No one can recall the last time an illegal immigrant hiked into the rugged and remote wilderness of Glacier National Park in an attempt to slip into the U.S. But that isn't stopping some in Congress from proposing to give border agents control over environmental laws in protected areas such as the popular tourist attraction in Montana, Washington's North Cascades National Park and all federal land within 100 miles of the U.S. border.
Associated Press interviews with northern border local sheriffs, federal officials, land managers, advocacy groups and others find that border threats in places such as the mountainous peaks of Glacier National Park are far more infrequent than in the deserts of Texas or Arizona — where illegal immigration arrests in one Border Patrol sector can run 1,000 times greater than a sector on the Canadian border.
The proposal would let the Border Patrol circumvent dozens of environmental laws from the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act in areas those laws were created for: the nation's most-protected wilderness areas that fall within the 100-mile border zone with both Mexico and Canada. Supporters of the measure argue it is needed to cut through a bureaucratic gridlock where border agents have difficulty dealing with environmental laws and roadless rules.
But It has left critics wondering if the one-size-fits all approach to reshape border protection makes sense, and whether it's worth potentially marring wilderness areas that have been protected for a century or more.
Montana has become a flashpoint for the debate partly because much of the state's border with Canada is on federal land. And the dispute recently became a top issue in one of the nation's most competitive U.S. Senate races.
Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana, a Republican co-sponsor of the House bill who is in the midst of a fierce campaign to unseat freshman Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in 2012, has argued environmental rules should not get in the way of border protection.
Tester has joined some hunters and conservationists who argue the bill is a heavy-handed fix that allows unchecked development in places they cherish.
It's not exactly clear what the Border Patrol would do with that new authority. The bill, which has 32 co-sponsors in the U.S. House, suggests the agency could build new roads, keep current roads open, establish bases or even use motorized equipment in the backcountry of the national parks to shore up border protection.
But critics and conservationists ask if the actual border threat is worth taking those measures. Unlike the border with Mexico, where illegal activity is a daily problem, the proposed law has so far met with more skepticism on the northern border where proof is scant that the likes of human traffickers are using the wilderness reaches of Montana, Idaho and Washington.
"Compared to the southern border it is an infinitesimally small number. It is like one in a year, not thousands," said North Cascades National Park superintendent Chip Jenkins, who believes the current laws are fine for his area of Washington state. "So far it has been working. Part of it is that the geography works to our advantage. It is incredibly rugged terrain, and very difficult to navigate."
About 14 years ago, a would-be terrorist tried to sneak into the country through North Cascades National Park, and in what the park service considers a success the man was caught by rangers. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer later was caught again elsewhere by immigration officials, and after ignoring orders to leave the country, was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. with a pipe bomb.
Police and agents do report more smuggling activity in the national forests, compared to the parks, but sheriffs in northwestern Montana consider the problem to be rare.
"I would think it is occurring randomly. I don't think it is a continual problem," said Flathead County Sheriff Chuck Curry. "Most of our border area is relatively rugged and relatively inaccessible."
But Curry notes there is the potential for people to use the area as a crossing point, and there have been cases where electronic surveillance has been tripped at an abandoned port of entry just west of Glacier National Park in the Flathead National Forest.
"Somebody with the will and resources certainly could get across the border if they chose to," said Curry. "It certainly is not at the top of my list, but it is a concern, especially as it pertains to the flow of drugs across the border."
The Border Patrol in eastern Washington reports more active crossing in the national forests of that region. Spokesman James Frackelton notes several multimillion dollar seizures of drugs in recent years that were brought overland on foot. He said the British Columbia marijuana industry often sends product down south in exchange for cocaine headed north on public land smuggling routes that have been used as far back as prohibition when booze flowed south from Canada.
Frackleton said that designated wilderness areas that prevent motorized access are a frustration for border agents, and pointed out his agency views access differently than the Forest Service or Park Service.
"They are protecting natural resources and our mission is to protect the U.S. from terrorists, terrorist weapons and other threats," he said.
In the plains of Montana most of the border land is owned by private landowners or perhaps local governments— more similar to ownership patterns predominant in Midwestern or northeastern states — and not the federal government. In that portion of rural Montana, border agents and local sheriffs report a few incidents of smuggling though rural farm fields. However, the proposal in Congress targets border patrol access to federal land — not private farms.
Republican Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah is carrying the bill that eases the restrictions and recently passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. But it is one of the many GOP co-sponsors, Rehberg of Montana, who has been taking heat.
Recently, in a development potentially even more troublesome for the Republican supporters of the bill, some conservative writers have begun speaking out against it. In places like Montana where many libertarian-minded gun owners are wary of potential federal government intrusions, the idea of granting border agents new authority in the name of increased security is raising some hackles.
Chuck Baldwin, a former Constitution Party presidential candidate who is now active in Montana conservative circles, criticized Rehberg's support for the bill and recently wrote that the proposal gives "more power and authority to the federal government's emerging police state."
Rehberg, who has already worked to change the bill to ensure that border agents could not restrict hunting or other public access to land, made it clear through a spokesman that his continued support for the measure is not certain. Rehberg, in an obvious effort to appease his conservative base, has suggested the bill could be improved by requiring the border patrol first get the permission of the local sheriff before exercising the powers granted.
"The bill is still not perfect. And he is working to make it better," spokesman Jed Link said. "But at the end of the day, if this thing is not good for Montana, Denny is not going to support it."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJ7zK__fCbpi_cnSVOBfFFZj8ubw?docId=30b802da92994c7bb07abbf3fdb7a4c8
November 13, 2011
by MATT GOURAS
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — No one can recall the last time an illegal immigrant hiked into the rugged and remote wilderness of Glacier National Park in an attempt to slip into the U.S. But that isn't stopping some in Congress from proposing to give border agents control over environmental laws in protected areas such as the popular tourist attraction in Montana, Washington's North Cascades National Park and all federal land within 100 miles of the U.S. border.
Associated Press interviews with northern border local sheriffs, federal officials, land managers, advocacy groups and others find that border threats in places such as the mountainous peaks of Glacier National Park are far more infrequent than in the deserts of Texas or Arizona — where illegal immigration arrests in one Border Patrol sector can run 1,000 times greater than a sector on the Canadian border.
The proposal would let the Border Patrol circumvent dozens of environmental laws from the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act in areas those laws were created for: the nation's most-protected wilderness areas that fall within the 100-mile border zone with both Mexico and Canada. Supporters of the measure argue it is needed to cut through a bureaucratic gridlock where border agents have difficulty dealing with environmental laws and roadless rules.
But It has left critics wondering if the one-size-fits all approach to reshape border protection makes sense, and whether it's worth potentially marring wilderness areas that have been protected for a century or more.
Montana has become a flashpoint for the debate partly because much of the state's border with Canada is on federal land. And the dispute recently became a top issue in one of the nation's most competitive U.S. Senate races.
Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana, a Republican co-sponsor of the House bill who is in the midst of a fierce campaign to unseat freshman Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in 2012, has argued environmental rules should not get in the way of border protection.
Tester has joined some hunters and conservationists who argue the bill is a heavy-handed fix that allows unchecked development in places they cherish.
It's not exactly clear what the Border Patrol would do with that new authority. The bill, which has 32 co-sponsors in the U.S. House, suggests the agency could build new roads, keep current roads open, establish bases or even use motorized equipment in the backcountry of the national parks to shore up border protection.
But critics and conservationists ask if the actual border threat is worth taking those measures. Unlike the border with Mexico, where illegal activity is a daily problem, the proposed law has so far met with more skepticism on the northern border where proof is scant that the likes of human traffickers are using the wilderness reaches of Montana, Idaho and Washington.
"Compared to the southern border it is an infinitesimally small number. It is like one in a year, not thousands," said North Cascades National Park superintendent Chip Jenkins, who believes the current laws are fine for his area of Washington state. "So far it has been working. Part of it is that the geography works to our advantage. It is incredibly rugged terrain, and very difficult to navigate."
About 14 years ago, a would-be terrorist tried to sneak into the country through North Cascades National Park, and in what the park service considers a success the man was caught by rangers. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer later was caught again elsewhere by immigration officials, and after ignoring orders to leave the country, was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. with a pipe bomb.
Police and agents do report more smuggling activity in the national forests, compared to the parks, but sheriffs in northwestern Montana consider the problem to be rare.
"I would think it is occurring randomly. I don't think it is a continual problem," said Flathead County Sheriff Chuck Curry. "Most of our border area is relatively rugged and relatively inaccessible."
But Curry notes there is the potential for people to use the area as a crossing point, and there have been cases where electronic surveillance has been tripped at an abandoned port of entry just west of Glacier National Park in the Flathead National Forest.
"Somebody with the will and resources certainly could get across the border if they chose to," said Curry. "It certainly is not at the top of my list, but it is a concern, especially as it pertains to the flow of drugs across the border."
The Border Patrol in eastern Washington reports more active crossing in the national forests of that region. Spokesman James Frackelton notes several multimillion dollar seizures of drugs in recent years that were brought overland on foot. He said the British Columbia marijuana industry often sends product down south in exchange for cocaine headed north on public land smuggling routes that have been used as far back as prohibition when booze flowed south from Canada.
Frackleton said that designated wilderness areas that prevent motorized access are a frustration for border agents, and pointed out his agency views access differently than the Forest Service or Park Service.
"They are protecting natural resources and our mission is to protect the U.S. from terrorists, terrorist weapons and other threats," he said.
In the plains of Montana most of the border land is owned by private landowners or perhaps local governments— more similar to ownership patterns predominant in Midwestern or northeastern states — and not the federal government. In that portion of rural Montana, border agents and local sheriffs report a few incidents of smuggling though rural farm fields. However, the proposal in Congress targets border patrol access to federal land — not private farms.
Republican Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah is carrying the bill that eases the restrictions and recently passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. But it is one of the many GOP co-sponsors, Rehberg of Montana, who has been taking heat.
Recently, in a development potentially even more troublesome for the Republican supporters of the bill, some conservative writers have begun speaking out against it. In places like Montana where many libertarian-minded gun owners are wary of potential federal government intrusions, the idea of granting border agents new authority in the name of increased security is raising some hackles.
Chuck Baldwin, a former Constitution Party presidential candidate who is now active in Montana conservative circles, criticized Rehberg's support for the bill and recently wrote that the proposal gives "more power and authority to the federal government's emerging police state."
Rehberg, who has already worked to change the bill to ensure that border agents could not restrict hunting or other public access to land, made it clear through a spokesman that his continued support for the measure is not certain. Rehberg, in an obvious effort to appease his conservative base, has suggested the bill could be improved by requiring the border patrol first get the permission of the local sheriff before exercising the powers granted.
"The bill is still not perfect. And he is working to make it better," spokesman Jed Link said. "But at the end of the day, if this thing is not good for Montana, Denny is not going to support it."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJ7zK__fCbpi_cnSVOBfFFZj8ubw?docId=30b802da92994c7bb07abbf3fdb7a4c8
Border bill pits security against the environment
Minneapolis Star Tribune
November 14, 2011
by PAM LOUWAGIE
The Border Patrol would gain unprecedented authority over Minnesota's environmental landmarks on our northern border, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park, under legislation winding through Congress.
More than 30 environmental laws would be waived and the Department of Homeland Security would be allowed to build roads, erect fences, set up monitoring equipment and use vehicles to patrol public lands within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders, according to proposed legislation in the House.
Public land managers in the departments of Interior and Agriculture would not be allowed to "impede, prohibit or restrict" the patrol from controlling the border, under the Republican-sponsored legislation. Homeland Security could disregard landmark environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The bill, authored by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and a similar measure by Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., were written primarily to address human and drug smuggling on the southern border, but both include the northern border, too. A Senate version does not.
The proposals have residents in northern Minnesota bristling, saying the area has few people crossing illegally and the Border Patrol would be wiser to engage more locals in reporting suspicious activity.
"All those illegal walleyes that are coming across? I mean, good God," quipped Ted Young, co-owner of Poplar Creek Guesthouse and Boundary Country Trekking, about 3 miles from the Canadian border on the Gunflint Trail. "We don't want fences, we don't want roads. ... Don't create problems that are not there."
Sue Prom, who with her husband owns Voyageur Canoe Outfitters about 5 miles from the Canadian border, said she's frustrated the northern border has been lumped in with problems to the south: "We don't have people swimming from Canada into the United States," she said.
But the legislation is also about potential terrorists, said Bishop spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin. "We know that there have been efforts by others wishing to do harm to our country to enter through both the north and the southern borders," she said.
Working together locally
If passed, the legislation would mark a significant change in the balance of power among the federal departments, now governed by a five-year-old agreement requiring them to collaborate for minimal environmental impact.
Leaders of federal agencies in the region say they have been working well together under that agreement, both watching the border and protecting the environment.
"We're not aware of any situations where either of us are hampering one another's missions," said Mike Ward, superintendent of Voyageurs National Park.
The departments back each other up on law enforcement missions, sometimes share equipment and often share information, officials said.
"We haven't had this need, specifically, for any legislation," said Border Patrol spokesman Stacy Forbes, based in Grand Forks, N.D.
The current agreement allows Border Patrol agents to patrol areas on foot or horseback without asking, as well as use motorized vehicles in emergency situations, Forbes said his agency typically notifies local wilderness managers, because they know the area best.
"They're the experts," Forbes said. "They would know if there's any type of movement."
Jim Sanders, forest supervisor of the 3.2 million-acre Superior National Forest, which contains the Boundary Waters, said his staff acts as "eyes and ears" for Border Patrol, too.
"It's working well," he said. "Some of their folks were helping us during the Pagami fire."
But in other areas of the country, some former Border Patrol agents complain the agreement in place now -- a memorandum of understanding -- gives an upper hand to park and wilderness land managers. It amounts to the Border Patrol making requests, one former agent said.
"It's a mother-may-I thing, and a request to get in there may take months," said Kent Lundgren, chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. "They allow hot pursuit. That's good, but that does not allow patrol, and patrol is how you find things out."
Agents like to be outside, Lundgren said, and naturally act as environmental stewards.
Subbotin, of Bishop's office, said they expect agents will use increased access only for what's essential to their mission. "To argue otherwise would be to challenge their judgment."
The bill's goals are in lockstep with the Pledge to America, a 48-page policy agenda set forth by House Republicans in 2010. That document contains language to "prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands."
Jane Danowitz, director of the U.S. public lands program at the Pew Environment Group, said Homeland Security officials didn't ask for the legislation and she thinks that's significant.
"We're talking about legislation that would basically, under the guise of national security, undo environmental laws that have been on the books for decades," Danowitz said. "These are popular protections."
U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minn., whose district includes the state's northeast border, said in a statement that international security often conflicts with other priorities such as environmental preservation. He looks forward to examining "a proper balance between international security and Minnesota's pristine wilderness."
No big plans for sector
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Grand Forks Sector, which covers 861 miles of border in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin, increased the number of agents from 28 in 1992 to 213 last year.
In fiscal year 2010, those agents apprehended 543 illegal immigrants, 388 of whom originally came from Mexico. In fiscal year 2008, 78 people illegally crossed from Canada into the sector, Forbes said. More recent data wasn't available.
Forbes said the Grand Forks Sector, which stretches south to Kansas and Missouri, has no plans to build roads, fences or other major infrastructure, though an environmental assessment along the entire northern border is being completed to expedite such plans if needed in the future.
Dyke Williams, who for 25 years has owned a cabin on the end of the Gunflint Trail, less than a mile from the border, said it doesn't matter if there are no plans at the moment. "Pass that puppy and you're going to have plans all over the place," he said.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/133781373.html?page=1&c=y
November 14, 2011
by PAM LOUWAGIE
The Border Patrol would gain unprecedented authority over Minnesota's environmental landmarks on our northern border, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park, under legislation winding through Congress.
More than 30 environmental laws would be waived and the Department of Homeland Security would be allowed to build roads, erect fences, set up monitoring equipment and use vehicles to patrol public lands within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders, according to proposed legislation in the House.
Public land managers in the departments of Interior and Agriculture would not be allowed to "impede, prohibit or restrict" the patrol from controlling the border, under the Republican-sponsored legislation. Homeland Security could disregard landmark environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The bill, authored by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and a similar measure by Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., were written primarily to address human and drug smuggling on the southern border, but both include the northern border, too. A Senate version does not.
The proposals have residents in northern Minnesota bristling, saying the area has few people crossing illegally and the Border Patrol would be wiser to engage more locals in reporting suspicious activity.
"All those illegal walleyes that are coming across? I mean, good God," quipped Ted Young, co-owner of Poplar Creek Guesthouse and Boundary Country Trekking, about 3 miles from the Canadian border on the Gunflint Trail. "We don't want fences, we don't want roads. ... Don't create problems that are not there."
Sue Prom, who with her husband owns Voyageur Canoe Outfitters about 5 miles from the Canadian border, said she's frustrated the northern border has been lumped in with problems to the south: "We don't have people swimming from Canada into the United States," she said.
But the legislation is also about potential terrorists, said Bishop spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin. "We know that there have been efforts by others wishing to do harm to our country to enter through both the north and the southern borders," she said.
Working together locally
If passed, the legislation would mark a significant change in the balance of power among the federal departments, now governed by a five-year-old agreement requiring them to collaborate for minimal environmental impact.
Leaders of federal agencies in the region say they have been working well together under that agreement, both watching the border and protecting the environment.
"We're not aware of any situations where either of us are hampering one another's missions," said Mike Ward, superintendent of Voyageurs National Park.
The departments back each other up on law enforcement missions, sometimes share equipment and often share information, officials said.
"We haven't had this need, specifically, for any legislation," said Border Patrol spokesman Stacy Forbes, based in Grand Forks, N.D.
The current agreement allows Border Patrol agents to patrol areas on foot or horseback without asking, as well as use motorized vehicles in emergency situations, Forbes said his agency typically notifies local wilderness managers, because they know the area best.
"They're the experts," Forbes said. "They would know if there's any type of movement."
Jim Sanders, forest supervisor of the 3.2 million-acre Superior National Forest, which contains the Boundary Waters, said his staff acts as "eyes and ears" for Border Patrol, too.
"It's working well," he said. "Some of their folks were helping us during the Pagami fire."
But in other areas of the country, some former Border Patrol agents complain the agreement in place now -- a memorandum of understanding -- gives an upper hand to park and wilderness land managers. It amounts to the Border Patrol making requests, one former agent said.
"It's a mother-may-I thing, and a request to get in there may take months," said Kent Lundgren, chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. "They allow hot pursuit. That's good, but that does not allow patrol, and patrol is how you find things out."
Agents like to be outside, Lundgren said, and naturally act as environmental stewards.
Subbotin, of Bishop's office, said they expect agents will use increased access only for what's essential to their mission. "To argue otherwise would be to challenge their judgment."
The bill's goals are in lockstep with the Pledge to America, a 48-page policy agenda set forth by House Republicans in 2010. That document contains language to "prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands."
Jane Danowitz, director of the U.S. public lands program at the Pew Environment Group, said Homeland Security officials didn't ask for the legislation and she thinks that's significant.
"We're talking about legislation that would basically, under the guise of national security, undo environmental laws that have been on the books for decades," Danowitz said. "These are popular protections."
U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minn., whose district includes the state's northeast border, said in a statement that international security often conflicts with other priorities such as environmental preservation. He looks forward to examining "a proper balance between international security and Minnesota's pristine wilderness."
No big plans for sector
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Grand Forks Sector, which covers 861 miles of border in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin, increased the number of agents from 28 in 1992 to 213 last year.
In fiscal year 2010, those agents apprehended 543 illegal immigrants, 388 of whom originally came from Mexico. In fiscal year 2008, 78 people illegally crossed from Canada into the sector, Forbes said. More recent data wasn't available.
Forbes said the Grand Forks Sector, which stretches south to Kansas and Missouri, has no plans to build roads, fences or other major infrastructure, though an environmental assessment along the entire northern border is being completed to expedite such plans if needed in the future.
Dyke Williams, who for 25 years has owned a cabin on the end of the Gunflint Trail, less than a mile from the border, said it doesn't matter if there are no plans at the moment. "Pass that puppy and you're going to have plans all over the place," he said.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/133781373.html?page=1&c=y
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Northern Border Fence Idea Raises Eyebrows Along Frontier
OPB News
October 12, 2011
by Tom Banse
BLAINE, Wash. - A planning document describing possible security enhancements along our northern border is raising eyebrows both in Canada and the U.S. Most notably, the study for the Department of Homeland Security raises the idea of fencing short portions of the northern border. Some Canadians are offended by the idea. The U.S. agency is now trying to contain the negative reaction. Correspondent Tom Banse has details from Blaine, Washington.
I'm standing now right on the U.S.-Canada border, having approached from the U.S. side across a playground. Just across the line is a pretty much unremarkable neighborhood in Canada.
There's no fence. Just this shallow ditch and some warning signs saying you're leaving the United States. I can literally just jump across. Now I'm in Canada. Jump right back. And we're back in the U.S.
"Don't Fence Me In" is the song they're singing across the border this month. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency instigated the lament with an environmental review.
The planning document contemplates short stretches of fencing on the northern border. Also up for discussion are upgrades to patrol roads, short-range radar, more cameras or aerial drones, among other things.
But it was the fence that caught the locals' attention the most says British Columbia legislator Barry Penner.
"It is a disappointing development to think that after all these many years of being good neighbors, one side or the other might think it necessary now to build a fence," he says.
Penner represents a district along the Canada-U.S. border outside Vancouver. In response to voices like this, the U.S. border agency is trying to tamp down fears.
Customs and Border Protection planner Don Beckham says the agency has no intention of building a fence on the northern border that resembles the steel curtain along parts of the Mexican border.
"We do discuss fencing, but it would be at very specific locations like fencing on either side of a small, remote port of entry to keep people literally from driving through a field to avoid the port of entry," he explains.
Beckham says it would be totally unrealistic to deter illegal border crossings by fencing the entire 4,000 mile long border with Canada. His team favors a flexible approach that uses a broad array of possible security measures.
"We are looking forward five to seven years, understanding that the security threat is not static," Beckham says. "It is constantly changing and Customs and Border Protection needs to change the responses to meet the threat."
Beckham says his agency is listening to public comments and won't make any decisions until at least next year.
Bellingham resident Caroline Correa came to a public meeting with concerns about aerial drone surveillance and how border fencing might block wildlife migration.
"But it seemed to be minimal if I'm hearing correctly," she says. "That's a comfort level and we would have to make certain that they hold their word."
Vancouver Sun newspaper columnist Vaughn Palmer finds it ironic the discussion of fencing came up just as the Canadian government is deep in talks with the Obama Administration about a joint North American security pact. The idea there is to tighten controls around the perimeter of our two countries and thereby enable freer mobility across the shared border.
"Since 9/11, that cross-border relationship has changed in any number of ways," Palmer says. "We're going to be struggling to reconcile the security concerns in the United States with the trade and tourism interests between the two countries."
---
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is holding a public hearing Thursday in Boundary County, Idaho to gather more reactions to its northern border study document. That gathering is happening from 7 to 9 p.m. at the event center in Naples, Idaho.
Comments can also be submitted by email: http://www.northernborderpeis.com/get-involved.html
On the Web:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Northern Border study:
http://www.northernborderpeis.com/
Opinion column by J.L Granatstein in the Ottawa Citizen:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/American+friends+trouble/5526694/story.html
http://news.opb.org/article/northern_border_fence_idea_raises_eyebrows_along_frontier/
October 12, 2011
by Tom Banse
BLAINE, Wash. - A planning document describing possible security enhancements along our northern border is raising eyebrows both in Canada and the U.S. Most notably, the study for the Department of Homeland Security raises the idea of fencing short portions of the northern border. Some Canadians are offended by the idea. The U.S. agency is now trying to contain the negative reaction. Correspondent Tom Banse has details from Blaine, Washington.
I'm standing now right on the U.S.-Canada border, having approached from the U.S. side across a playground. Just across the line is a pretty much unremarkable neighborhood in Canada.
There's no fence. Just this shallow ditch and some warning signs saying you're leaving the United States. I can literally just jump across. Now I'm in Canada. Jump right back. And we're back in the U.S.
"Don't Fence Me In" is the song they're singing across the border this month. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency instigated the lament with an environmental review.
The planning document contemplates short stretches of fencing on the northern border. Also up for discussion are upgrades to patrol roads, short-range radar, more cameras or aerial drones, among other things.
But it was the fence that caught the locals' attention the most says British Columbia legislator Barry Penner.
"It is a disappointing development to think that after all these many years of being good neighbors, one side or the other might think it necessary now to build a fence," he says.
Penner represents a district along the Canada-U.S. border outside Vancouver. In response to voices like this, the U.S. border agency is trying to tamp down fears.
Customs and Border Protection planner Don Beckham says the agency has no intention of building a fence on the northern border that resembles the steel curtain along parts of the Mexican border.
"We do discuss fencing, but it would be at very specific locations like fencing on either side of a small, remote port of entry to keep people literally from driving through a field to avoid the port of entry," he explains.
Beckham says it would be totally unrealistic to deter illegal border crossings by fencing the entire 4,000 mile long border with Canada. His team favors a flexible approach that uses a broad array of possible security measures.
"We are looking forward five to seven years, understanding that the security threat is not static," Beckham says. "It is constantly changing and Customs and Border Protection needs to change the responses to meet the threat."
Beckham says his agency is listening to public comments and won't make any decisions until at least next year.
Bellingham resident Caroline Correa came to a public meeting with concerns about aerial drone surveillance and how border fencing might block wildlife migration.
"But it seemed to be minimal if I'm hearing correctly," she says. "That's a comfort level and we would have to make certain that they hold their word."
Vancouver Sun newspaper columnist Vaughn Palmer finds it ironic the discussion of fencing came up just as the Canadian government is deep in talks with the Obama Administration about a joint North American security pact. The idea there is to tighten controls around the perimeter of our two countries and thereby enable freer mobility across the shared border.
"Since 9/11, that cross-border relationship has changed in any number of ways," Palmer says. "We're going to be struggling to reconcile the security concerns in the United States with the trade and tourism interests between the two countries."
---
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is holding a public hearing Thursday in Boundary County, Idaho to gather more reactions to its northern border study document. That gathering is happening from 7 to 9 p.m. at the event center in Naples, Idaho.
Comments can also be submitted by email: http://www.northernborderpeis.com/get-involved.html
On the Web:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Northern Border study:
http://www.northernborderpeis.com/
Opinion column by J.L Granatstein in the Ottawa Citizen:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/American+friends+trouble/5526694/story.html
http://news.opb.org/article/northern_border_fence_idea_raises_eyebrows_along_frontier/
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Environmental impact statement leaves border fencing a possibility
Watertown Daily Times
October 6, 2011
by Josh Gore
MASSENA — Residents of the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation and the village of Massena told U.S. Customs and Border Protection representatives Tuesday night they do not want a fence along the northern border.
Representatives of the border security agency came to solicit feedback and official reaction of the Northern Border Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which purposes to “provide a well-integrated, reasonable framework for sustaining and enhancing security” over the next five to seven years.
Of the 30 people who attended the meeting at the Massena Veterans of Foreign Wars post, most did not know much about the document, but they did know a fence was discussed.
Corey Tarbell, 37, Akwesasne, found out about an hour before the meeting and rushed over, he said.
“I don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish today,” Mr. Tarbell said.
A PowerPoint presentation and posters throughout the room explained possible security situations.
Future administrations will look at the report when making decisions about how to handle future threats, Customs and Border Protection representative Don Beckham said.
Mr. Tarbell and many others were agitated when told they could not speak at the meeting but could record their comments in a microphone in the back of the room.
“I’m steaming about this,” he said. “These recordings don’t mean anything to them.”
Speaking into the recording device or giving a written statement were the only ways audience members could make official comments.
The group, though, decided to speak its opinions aloud for about 30 minutes.
“We can’t predict what the security will be,” Mr. Beckham said. “Please put your comments on the record.”
Many did walk to the back of the conference room to speak into a recording machine, but some left after just speaking to the audience.
Jessica L. Jock, Massena, said drafting a report that covers the entire border and not each specific area doesn’t do the area justice. She also said another meeting should be held to explain better the future security in the local area.
According to the impact statement, fencing off the border in “trouble spots” could be used to deter illegal activity.
“They are screaming terrorism and taking away our civil liberties,” said Kakawerais, a 55-year-old grandmother from Akwesasne.”You don’t care about the people, and you don’t care about the environment.”
Mr. Beckham, though, said fencing would be in specific areas only and would not blanket the border.
Many at the meeting said the presenters were not familiar with the area and were reading information they could present to people anywhere along the northern border.
“It’s just blanket information — not specific,” Mr. Tarbell said. “I still don’t know what’s going on.”
Mr. Tarbell, who crosses the border five to seven times a day for work, also said the United States is trying to make people afraid.
“They have done everything else; a fence is next,” Mr. Tarbell said.
Those who would like to submit an official comment can do so at www.northernborderpeis.com.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20111006/NEWS05/710069888
October 6, 2011
by Josh Gore
MASSENA — Residents of the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation and the village of Massena told U.S. Customs and Border Protection representatives Tuesday night they do not want a fence along the northern border.
Representatives of the border security agency came to solicit feedback and official reaction of the Northern Border Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which purposes to “provide a well-integrated, reasonable framework for sustaining and enhancing security” over the next five to seven years.
Of the 30 people who attended the meeting at the Massena Veterans of Foreign Wars post, most did not know much about the document, but they did know a fence was discussed.
Corey Tarbell, 37, Akwesasne, found out about an hour before the meeting and rushed over, he said.
“I don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish today,” Mr. Tarbell said.
A PowerPoint presentation and posters throughout the room explained possible security situations.
Future administrations will look at the report when making decisions about how to handle future threats, Customs and Border Protection representative Don Beckham said.
Mr. Tarbell and many others were agitated when told they could not speak at the meeting but could record their comments in a microphone in the back of the room.
“I’m steaming about this,” he said. “These recordings don’t mean anything to them.”
Speaking into the recording device or giving a written statement were the only ways audience members could make official comments.
The group, though, decided to speak its opinions aloud for about 30 minutes.
“We can’t predict what the security will be,” Mr. Beckham said. “Please put your comments on the record.”
Many did walk to the back of the conference room to speak into a recording machine, but some left after just speaking to the audience.
Jessica L. Jock, Massena, said drafting a report that covers the entire border and not each specific area doesn’t do the area justice. She also said another meeting should be held to explain better the future security in the local area.
According to the impact statement, fencing off the border in “trouble spots” could be used to deter illegal activity.
“They are screaming terrorism and taking away our civil liberties,” said Kakawerais, a 55-year-old grandmother from Akwesasne.”You don’t care about the people, and you don’t care about the environment.”
Mr. Beckham, though, said fencing would be in specific areas only and would not blanket the border.
Many at the meeting said the presenters were not familiar with the area and were reading information they could present to people anywhere along the northern border.
“It’s just blanket information — not specific,” Mr. Tarbell said. “I still don’t know what’s going on.”
Mr. Tarbell, who crosses the border five to seven times a day for work, also said the United States is trying to make people afraid.
“They have done everything else; a fence is next,” Mr. Tarbell said.
Those who would like to submit an official comment can do so at www.northernborderpeis.com.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20111006/NEWS05/710069888
Thursday, September 29, 2011
U.S. mulls Canadian border fence
CBC News
September 29, 2011
The United States is looking at building fences along the border with Canada to help keep out terrorists and other criminals, according to a draft report by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency
The report proposes the use of "fencing and other barriers" on the 49th parallel to manage "trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control."
But a spokesperson for U.S Customs and Border Protection said the government is not considering the fence option "at this time" and instead is looking at the environmental effects of putting more manpower, technology and infrastructure along the border.
The border service is also pondering options including a beefed-up technological presence through increased use of radar, sensors, cameras, drones and vehicle scanners. In addition, it might continue to improve or expand customs facilities at ports of entry.
The agency considered but ruled out the possibility of hiring "significantly more" U.S. Border Patrol agents to increase the rate of inspections, noting staffing has already risen in recent years.
Customs and Border Protection is inviting comment on the options and plans a series of public meetings in Washington and several U.S. border communities next month. It will then decide which ideas to pursue.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted last month the challenges of monitoring the vast, sparsely populated northern border region. She stressed manpower, but also a greater reliance on technology.
Ironically, the moves come as Canada and the U.S. try to finalize a perimeter security arrangement that would focus on continental defences while easing border congestion. It would be aimed at speeding passage of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border, which has become something of a bottleneck since the 911 attacks.
Relatively speaking, Washington has focused more energy and resources on tightening security along the border with Mexico than at the sprawling one with Canada.
But that may be changing.
Only small portion secured
A U.S. Government Accountability Office report recently warned that only a small portion of the border with Canada is properly secure. It said U.S. border officers control just 50 kilometres of the 6,400-kilometre boundary.
The Customs and Border Protection report says while fences have been a big element in deterring unauthorized crossings of the U.S.-Mexican border, "it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role" on the northern border, given its length and terrain that varies from prairie to forest.
However, the agency would use fencing and other barriers such as trenches to control movement and sometimes delay people trying to sneak across the border, increasing the likelihood they could be caught, says the report.
It doesn't provide details about what the fences might look like, but suggests they would be designed to blend into the environment and "complement the natural landscape."
The approach would also involve upgrading roadways and trails near the border.
"The lack of roads or presence of unmaintained roads impedes efficient surveillance operations," says the report. "Improving or expanding the roadway and trail networks could improve mobility, allowing agents to patrol more miles each day and shortening response times."
Over the last two years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has already made what it calls "critical security improvements along the northern border," adding inspectors at the ports of entry and Border Patrol agents between ports, as well as modernizing land crossings.
Nearly 3,800 Customs and Border Protection officers scrutinize people and goods at crossings. The number of Border Patrol agents working between crossings along the northern parallel has increased 700 per cent since Sept. 11, 2001. And some three dozen land ports of entry are being modernized.
Unmanned U.S. aircraft patrol about 1,500 kilometres along the northern border from Washington to Minnesota as well as more than 300 kilometres of the Canadian border around New York state and Lake Ontario.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/29/fence-border-canada.html?cmp=googleeditorspick
September 29, 2011
The United States is looking at building fences along the border with Canada to help keep out terrorists and other criminals, according to a draft report by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency
The report proposes the use of "fencing and other barriers" on the 49th parallel to manage "trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control."
But a spokesperson for U.S Customs and Border Protection said the government is not considering the fence option "at this time" and instead is looking at the environmental effects of putting more manpower, technology and infrastructure along the border.
The border service is also pondering options including a beefed-up technological presence through increased use of radar, sensors, cameras, drones and vehicle scanners. In addition, it might continue to improve or expand customs facilities at ports of entry.
The agency considered but ruled out the possibility of hiring "significantly more" U.S. Border Patrol agents to increase the rate of inspections, noting staffing has already risen in recent years.
Customs and Border Protection is inviting comment on the options and plans a series of public meetings in Washington and several U.S. border communities next month. It will then decide which ideas to pursue.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted last month the challenges of monitoring the vast, sparsely populated northern border region. She stressed manpower, but also a greater reliance on technology.
Ironically, the moves come as Canada and the U.S. try to finalize a perimeter security arrangement that would focus on continental defences while easing border congestion. It would be aimed at speeding passage of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border, which has become something of a bottleneck since the 911 attacks.
Relatively speaking, Washington has focused more energy and resources on tightening security along the border with Mexico than at the sprawling one with Canada.
But that may be changing.
Only small portion secured
A U.S. Government Accountability Office report recently warned that only a small portion of the border with Canada is properly secure. It said U.S. border officers control just 50 kilometres of the 6,400-kilometre boundary.
The Customs and Border Protection report says while fences have been a big element in deterring unauthorized crossings of the U.S.-Mexican border, "it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role" on the northern border, given its length and terrain that varies from prairie to forest.
However, the agency would use fencing and other barriers such as trenches to control movement and sometimes delay people trying to sneak across the border, increasing the likelihood they could be caught, says the report.
It doesn't provide details about what the fences might look like, but suggests they would be designed to blend into the environment and "complement the natural landscape."
The approach would also involve upgrading roadways and trails near the border.
"The lack of roads or presence of unmaintained roads impedes efficient surveillance operations," says the report. "Improving or expanding the roadway and trail networks could improve mobility, allowing agents to patrol more miles each day and shortening response times."
Over the last two years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has already made what it calls "critical security improvements along the northern border," adding inspectors at the ports of entry and Border Patrol agents between ports, as well as modernizing land crossings.
Nearly 3,800 Customs and Border Protection officers scrutinize people and goods at crossings. The number of Border Patrol agents working between crossings along the northern parallel has increased 700 per cent since Sept. 11, 2001. And some three dozen land ports of entry are being modernized.
Unmanned U.S. aircraft patrol about 1,500 kilometres along the northern border from Washington to Minnesota as well as more than 300 kilometres of the Canadian border around New York state and Lake Ontario.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/29/fence-border-canada.html?cmp=googleeditorspick
U.S. denies border-fence plan, despite report
Globe and Mail
September 29, 2011
by Tu Thanh Ha and John Ibbitson
The United States government insists it has no plans to put up a fence along parts of the Canada-U.S. border, despite a report that contemplates exactly that.
The report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency put forward the possibility of fencing the border to deter illegal crossings. But a statement from the agency insisted that “a border fence along the northern border is not being considered at this time.”
The study that proposed the fence was intended to put forward options that could be considered “if additional manpower, technology, and infrastructure were employed,” the statement said.
There is no suggestion as yet that Congress or the Obama administration are planning to substantially increase border-protection funding.
The issue of a possible fence emerged as both countries prepared to release their Beyond the Border joint initiative that aims, in part, to improve border security through co-operation.
The possibility of the fence was brought up in a draft environmental impact study released two weeks ago seeking input from American communities along the 6,400-kilometre border from Maine to Washington State. The fencing would be far less extensive than that of the U.S.-Mexico border. Other tools could include deploying more remote sensors and upgrading checkpoints.
“While fencing has played a prominent role in CBP’s enforcement strategy on the Southern Border to deter illegal border crossings, it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role on the Northern Border, given the length of the border and the variability of the terrain,” the document says.
“CBP would use fencing and other barriers to manage movement (e.g., trenching across roads) in trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control; the resulting delay for cross-border violators would increase the rate of interdiction.”
An accompanying table shows there would be about five major projects, either upgrading access roads or building fences of more than 400 metres in length in each of four geographic areas: the border west of the Rockies, the Prairies, the Great Lakes and New England.
The proposal does not involve the border between Alaska and Canada.
The document outlines five alternatives to help the border agency “protect the Northern Border against evolving threats over the next five to seven years”:
- Maintaining the status quo. The study warns that “this alternative would not fully meet the need for the program because it would not allow CBP to improve its capability to interdict cross-border violators or to identify and resolve threats.”
- Upgrading current facilities such as border-patrol stations and ports of entry and providing more housing for personnel. “These facilities, built for a different era of operations, are poorly configured to support CBP’s evolving trade facilitation and antiterrorism mission,” the study says.
- Increasing detection by fielding more patrols and deploying more high-tech hardware, such as body and container scanners, remote sensors, microphones and cameras and radar.
- “Tactical security infrastructure,” meaning expanding access roads and “constructing additional barriers, such as selective fencing or vehicle barriers, at selected points along the border to deter and delay cross-border violators.”
- A mix of the last three options.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-denies-border-fence-plan-despite-report/article2184300/
September 29, 2011
by Tu Thanh Ha and John Ibbitson
The United States government insists it has no plans to put up a fence along parts of the Canada-U.S. border, despite a report that contemplates exactly that.
The report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency put forward the possibility of fencing the border to deter illegal crossings. But a statement from the agency insisted that “a border fence along the northern border is not being considered at this time.”
The study that proposed the fence was intended to put forward options that could be considered “if additional manpower, technology, and infrastructure were employed,” the statement said.
There is no suggestion as yet that Congress or the Obama administration are planning to substantially increase border-protection funding.
The issue of a possible fence emerged as both countries prepared to release their Beyond the Border joint initiative that aims, in part, to improve border security through co-operation.
The possibility of the fence was brought up in a draft environmental impact study released two weeks ago seeking input from American communities along the 6,400-kilometre border from Maine to Washington State. The fencing would be far less extensive than that of the U.S.-Mexico border. Other tools could include deploying more remote sensors and upgrading checkpoints.
“While fencing has played a prominent role in CBP’s enforcement strategy on the Southern Border to deter illegal border crossings, it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role on the Northern Border, given the length of the border and the variability of the terrain,” the document says.
“CBP would use fencing and other barriers to manage movement (e.g., trenching across roads) in trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control; the resulting delay for cross-border violators would increase the rate of interdiction.”
An accompanying table shows there would be about five major projects, either upgrading access roads or building fences of more than 400 metres in length in each of four geographic areas: the border west of the Rockies, the Prairies, the Great Lakes and New England.
The proposal does not involve the border between Alaska and Canada.
The document outlines five alternatives to help the border agency “protect the Northern Border against evolving threats over the next five to seven years”:
- Maintaining the status quo. The study warns that “this alternative would not fully meet the need for the program because it would not allow CBP to improve its capability to interdict cross-border violators or to identify and resolve threats.”
- Upgrading current facilities such as border-patrol stations and ports of entry and providing more housing for personnel. “These facilities, built for a different era of operations, are poorly configured to support CBP’s evolving trade facilitation and antiterrorism mission,” the study says.
- Increasing detection by fielding more patrols and deploying more high-tech hardware, such as body and container scanners, remote sensors, microphones and cameras and radar.
- “Tactical security infrastructure,” meaning expanding access roads and “constructing additional barriers, such as selective fencing or vehicle barriers, at selected points along the border to deter and delay cross-border violators.”
- A mix of the last three options.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-denies-border-fence-plan-despite-report/article2184300/
U.S. eyes fencing along Canadian border
Globe and Mail
September 29, 2011
by Jim Bronskill
The United States is looking at building fences along the border with Canada to help keep out terrorists and other criminals.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has proposed the use of “fencing and other barriers” on the 49th parallel to manage “trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control.”
The border service is also pondering options including a beefed-up technological presence through increased use of radar, sensors, cameras, drones and vehicle scanners. In addition, it might continue to improve or expand customs facilities at ports of entry.
The agency considered but ruled out the possibility of hiring “significantly more” U.S. Border Patrol agents to increase the rate of inspections, noting staffing has already risen in recent years.
The proposals are spelled out in a new draft report by the border service that examines the possible environmental impact of the various options over the next five to seven years.
Customs and Border Protection is inviting comment on the options and plans a series of public meetings in Washington and several U.S. border communities next month. It will then decide which ideas to pursue.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted last month the challenges of monitoring the vast, sparsely populated northern border region. She stressed manpower, but also a greater reliance on technology.
Ironically, the moves come as Canada and the U.S. try to finalize a perimeter security arrangement that would focus on continental defences while easing border congestion. It would be aimed at speeding passage of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border, which has become something of a bottleneck since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Relatively speaking, Washington has focused more energy and resources on tightening security along the border with Mexico than at the sprawling one with Canada.
But that may be changing.
A U.S. Government Accountability Office report recently warned that only a small portion of the border with Canada is properly secure. It said U.S. border officers control just 50 kilometres of the 6,400-kilometre boundary.
The Customs and Border Protection report says while fences have been a big element in deterring unauthorized crossings of the U.S.-Mexican border, “it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role” on the northern border, given its length and terrain that varies from prairie to forest.
However, the agency would use fencing and other barriers such as trenches to control movement and sometimes delay people trying to sneak across the border, increasing the likelihood they could be caught, says the report.
It doesn’t provide details about what the fences might look like, but suggests they would be designed to blend into the environment and “complement the natural landscape.”
The approach would also involve upgrading roadways and trails near the border.
“The lack of roads or presence of unmaintained roads impedes efficient surveillance operations,” says the report. “Improving or expanding the roadway and trail networks could improve mobility, allowing agents to patrol more miles each day and shortening response times.”
Over the last two years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has already made what it calls “critical security improvements along the northern border,” adding inspectors at the ports of entry and Border Patrol agents between ports, as well as modernizing land crossings.
Nearly 3,800 Customs and Border Protection officers scrutinize people and goods at crossings. The number of Border Patrol agents working between crossings along the northern parallel has increased 700 per cent since Sept. 11, 2001. And some three dozen land ports of entry are being modernized.
Unmanned U.S. aircraft patrol about 1,500 kilometres along the northern border from Washington to Minnesota as well as more than 300 kilometres of the Canadian border around New York state and Lake Ontario.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-eyes-fencing-along-canadian-border/article2184300/
September 29, 2011
by Jim Bronskill
The United States is looking at building fences along the border with Canada to help keep out terrorists and other criminals.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has proposed the use of “fencing and other barriers” on the 49th parallel to manage “trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control.”
The border service is also pondering options including a beefed-up technological presence through increased use of radar, sensors, cameras, drones and vehicle scanners. In addition, it might continue to improve or expand customs facilities at ports of entry.
The agency considered but ruled out the possibility of hiring “significantly more” U.S. Border Patrol agents to increase the rate of inspections, noting staffing has already risen in recent years.
The proposals are spelled out in a new draft report by the border service that examines the possible environmental impact of the various options over the next five to seven years.
Customs and Border Protection is inviting comment on the options and plans a series of public meetings in Washington and several U.S. border communities next month. It will then decide which ideas to pursue.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted last month the challenges of monitoring the vast, sparsely populated northern border region. She stressed manpower, but also a greater reliance on technology.
Ironically, the moves come as Canada and the U.S. try to finalize a perimeter security arrangement that would focus on continental defences while easing border congestion. It would be aimed at speeding passage of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border, which has become something of a bottleneck since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Relatively speaking, Washington has focused more energy and resources on tightening security along the border with Mexico than at the sprawling one with Canada.
But that may be changing.
A U.S. Government Accountability Office report recently warned that only a small portion of the border with Canada is properly secure. It said U.S. border officers control just 50 kilometres of the 6,400-kilometre boundary.
The Customs and Border Protection report says while fences have been a big element in deterring unauthorized crossings of the U.S.-Mexican border, “it is unlikely that fencing will play as prominent a role” on the northern border, given its length and terrain that varies from prairie to forest.
However, the agency would use fencing and other barriers such as trenches to control movement and sometimes delay people trying to sneak across the border, increasing the likelihood they could be caught, says the report.
It doesn’t provide details about what the fences might look like, but suggests they would be designed to blend into the environment and “complement the natural landscape.”
The approach would also involve upgrading roadways and trails near the border.
“The lack of roads or presence of unmaintained roads impedes efficient surveillance operations,” says the report. “Improving or expanding the roadway and trail networks could improve mobility, allowing agents to patrol more miles each day and shortening response times.”
Over the last two years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has already made what it calls “critical security improvements along the northern border,” adding inspectors at the ports of entry and Border Patrol agents between ports, as well as modernizing land crossings.
Nearly 3,800 Customs and Border Protection officers scrutinize people and goods at crossings. The number of Border Patrol agents working between crossings along the northern parallel has increased 700 per cent since Sept. 11, 2001. And some three dozen land ports of entry are being modernized.
Unmanned U.S. aircraft patrol about 1,500 kilometres along the northern border from Washington to Minnesota as well as more than 300 kilometres of the Canadian border around New York state and Lake Ontario.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-eyes-fencing-along-canadian-border/article2184300/
Monday, September 19, 2011
House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws
Great Falls Tribune
September 18, 2011
by John S. Adams
HELENA — A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.
The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.
Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.
Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.
"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies — and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."
Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.
"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."
The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."
In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.
Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.
Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.
"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives — securing our borders and conserving our federal lands — are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can — and should — do both."
According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.
"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.
John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.
He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.
Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.
Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws — including environmental protection laws — should ever supersede those foundational principles.
"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."
Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.
"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."
Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.
"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.
Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.
"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.
Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.
"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use — with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."
According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110919/NEWS01/109190303/House-measure-would-expand-Homeland-Security-powers-waive-environmental-laws?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
September 18, 2011
by John S. Adams
HELENA — A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.
The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.
Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.
Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.
"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies — and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."
Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.
"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."
The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."
In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.
Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.
Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.
"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives — securing our borders and conserving our federal lands — are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can — and should — do both."
According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.
"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.
John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.
He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.
Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.
Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws — including environmental protection laws — should ever supersede those foundational principles.
"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."
Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.
"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."
Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.
"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.
Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.
"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.
Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.
"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use — with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."
According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110919/NEWS01/109190303/House-measure-would-expand-Homeland-Security-powers-waive-environmental-laws?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
Friday, September 16, 2011
Environmental waivers enter DHS bill amid growing opposition
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."
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."
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Border meeting raises more questions than answers
Bellingham Herald
July 19, 2010
by John Stark
BELLINGHAM - Federal officials had little information to offer the two dozen people who turned out for a Monday, July 19 meeting that was meant to identify public concerns about environmental impacts from the activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The issues that the public identifies are supposed to be addressed in an environmental impact statement for the entire northern border, which is to be completed in draft form some time in October 2010. The draft is then available for additional public comment before it becomes final in spring 2011.
Chuck Parsons, environmental program manager in CBP's Laguna Niguel, Calif., office, invited those at the meeting to submit written comments by mail or e-mail, or by using a comments box set up for the meeting. A court reporter was on hand to record comments of those who wished to submit oral remarks at the meeting one-by-one, but there was no open comment session.
Parsons took a few questions from the audience but mostly apologized for not having more information.
Jim Davis of Bellingham, a member of the North Cascades Conservation Council, told Parsons he needed more information.
"I'm a little bit stymied as to how to make reasonable comments since I don't know what you're doing along the border," Davis said.
Parsons said people could comment on the environmental impacts from CBP activities they already know about.
The environmental impact statement is meant to identify the effects of all CBP activities on land, sea and air, and make sure that the agency complies with a range of federal environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Ken Wilcox of Bellingham, a member of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, asked Parsons how CBP could accomplish such a broad review so quickly for almost 4,000 miles of northern border.
Parsons replied that the border will be considered in four segments. Washington state is part of a segment that takes in the area from the crest of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific.
David Graves, Northwest field representative for the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is concerned about impacts on North Cascades National Park, whose northern boundary is the U.S. border.
Caroline Correa, a representative from the Community to Community Development immigrant rights group in Bellingham, said she had been impressed by the dedication of CBP and Border Patrol personnel during a recent tour of their Blaine facilities. But she said she still has concerns.
"We're worried about the militarization of the border and we're also worried there might be walls built, like in Mexico," Correa said.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/20/1532916/border-meeting-raises-more-questions.html
July 19, 2010
by John Stark
BELLINGHAM - Federal officials had little information to offer the two dozen people who turned out for a Monday, July 19 meeting that was meant to identify public concerns about environmental impacts from the activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The issues that the public identifies are supposed to be addressed in an environmental impact statement for the entire northern border, which is to be completed in draft form some time in October 2010. The draft is then available for additional public comment before it becomes final in spring 2011.
Chuck Parsons, environmental program manager in CBP's Laguna Niguel, Calif., office, invited those at the meeting to submit written comments by mail or e-mail, or by using a comments box set up for the meeting. A court reporter was on hand to record comments of those who wished to submit oral remarks at the meeting one-by-one, but there was no open comment session.
Parsons took a few questions from the audience but mostly apologized for not having more information.
Jim Davis of Bellingham, a member of the North Cascades Conservation Council, told Parsons he needed more information.
"I'm a little bit stymied as to how to make reasonable comments since I don't know what you're doing along the border," Davis said.
Parsons said people could comment on the environmental impacts from CBP activities they already know about.
The environmental impact statement is meant to identify the effects of all CBP activities on land, sea and air, and make sure that the agency complies with a range of federal environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Ken Wilcox of Bellingham, a member of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, asked Parsons how CBP could accomplish such a broad review so quickly for almost 4,000 miles of northern border.
Parsons replied that the border will be considered in four segments. Washington state is part of a segment that takes in the area from the crest of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific.
David Graves, Northwest field representative for the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is concerned about impacts on North Cascades National Park, whose northern boundary is the U.S. border.
Caroline Correa, a representative from the Community to Community Development immigrant rights group in Bellingham, said she had been impressed by the dedication of CBP and Border Patrol personnel during a recent tour of their Blaine facilities. But she said she still has concerns.
"We're worried about the militarization of the border and we're also worried there might be walls built, like in Mexico," Correa said.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/20/1532916/border-meeting-raises-more-questions.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)