Dems attack Bishop border security bill as ruse to gut protections

Salt Lake Tribune
June 19, 2012
by Thomas Burr

Washington • Border patrol agents would be able to legally bypass major environmental laws within 100 miles of America’s borders under Rep. Rob Bishop’s legislation passed by the House on Tuesday that brought a swift rebuke from Democrats and wilderness advocates.

On a nearly party-line vote, Bishop’s border security bill passed the House with a series of related measures, though it now heads to the Senate where prospects for passage aren’t as good.

Bishop pitched his bill as a way to shore up the porous borders abutting public lands where he says federal agents are being hamstrung in combatting illegal immigration by environmental laws protecting large tracts of land.

"The Border Patrol’s inability to routinely access the entire border region leaves us not only vulnerable to the trafficking of drugs but also potential terrorists and others who wish to harm our country," Bishop said in a statement after the vote. "With the passage of this legislation the Border Patrol will finally have the access necessary to help us achieve a truly secure border — a sovereign nation should have nothing less."

The bill, if it becomes law, would allow border patrol agents to bypass 16 federal laws in securing the border and apprehending illegal crossers, including the ability to use motorized vehicles in wilderness areas, build fences or install equipment.

Democrats and environmentalists termed Bishop’s bill a "ruse," arguing that Republicans’ goal was to undermine federal protections of clean air and water and treasured landscapes.

"Either they are using public concerns about immigration and drugs as a ruse to gut our nation’s environmental laws," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., "or they really do believe that we need to create a militarized, surveillance zone in which a paramilitary border patrol can be free of the laws that govern the rest of the nation."

Markey says a six-year-old agreement between the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior is working well and those agencies have not requested any changes. That document allows agents to pursue border crossers into sensitive wilderness areas if the agents believe there is a danger to life or to national security.

Bishop, who heads a House subcommittee over public lands, has pushed this issue for years, claiming that federal agents are unable to chase down illegal immigrants or suspected drug runners because of locked fences on lands controlled by the Interior Department or U.S. Forest Service.

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, called Bishop and fellow Republicans "cynical" for trying to exploit concern about security as a reason to undermine environmental laws that have stood for decades.

"This is not about immigration, this is not about border security, this is [about scrapping laws and rules] that the extremists in the Republican Party have wanted to rid themselves of for years," Grijalva said. "This is not about securing anything; this is about a gift to polluters."

The Wilderness Society and other groups called the bill’s passage an "overreach" that will hinder hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities.

But the measure also had its supporters, including from the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, which said it shows a "resounding message that the people of the United States are serious about establishing complete border security."

Bishop’s bill was one of 14 included in an omnibus measure that also included language to remove an expectation that a power company building hydropower plants in Spanish Fork Canyon would have to give the federal government the first $161 million in profits.

Even if the package of bills gets through the Senate, it could face a veto.

The White House signaled its opposition to the measures late Monday, saying specifically that Bishop’s bill would "thwart successful efforts by agencies to collaborate on border security while protecting our natural and cultural resources."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54334367-90/border-bishop-laws-lands.html.csp

House OKs waiver of enviro laws at borders

Arizona Daily Star / Associated Press
June 20, 2012
by Matthew Daly


WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House approved a bill Tuesday that would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent more than a dozen environmental laws on all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the borders with Mexico and Canada.

Supporters - including newly sworn-in Rep. Ron Barber, a Tucson Democrat - said the measure is needed to give border agents unfettered access to rugged lands now controlled by the Interior Department and Forest Service.

Laws such as the Wilderness Act and Endangered Species Act often prevent agents from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land, leaving it to wildlife, illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed, they said.

The bill was approved 232-188.

The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said restrictions on federal lands have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals, who not only bring in drugs but also abuse and rape women and leave behind thousands of tons of trash.

"Drug traffickers couldn't care less about environmental sensitivities," he said. "The removal of these criminals from our public lands is a value to the environment as well as the mission of the land managers."

But opponents, including hunters, conservationists and Hispanic advocacy groups, call the bill a heavy-handed fix that guts important environmental protections. They also question whether the measure is needed along the vast Canadian border, where there is scant evidence that illegal immigrants are hiking through national parks or wilderness areas in an attempt to slip into the U.S.
The Obama administration opposes the border-control bill, part of a package of 14 land-use bills approved Tuesday by the House.

The measure faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the House bill would sacrifice crucial environmental protections to advance an anti-immigrant and anti-regulatory agenda.

Citizens of border communities who have been subjected to what he called an ever-increasing federal law enforcement presence "know what it is like to live in a police state where undertrained security forces with unfettered authority and a lack of oversight are ever-present," Grijalva said.

However, Barber - Grijalva's Democratic colleague from Southern Arizona - crossed party lines to support the House bill on his first day in office, after being elected last week.

"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border," Barber said Tuesday in a news release. "There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."

In a statement, the White House said the bill in its current form would "thwart successful efforts by agencies to collaborate on border security" and presents "a false choice between natural-resources protection and the economy or national security."

Besides the border measure, the bill also would transfer control of more than 65,000 acres of centuries-old trees in Alaska's Tongass National Forest to a private corporation. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, allows the Sealaska Corp. to log large, old-growth trees in the Tongass, the nation's largest national forest. Sealaska is one of 13 Native regional corporations set up under a 1971 act that compensated Alaska Natives for the loss of lands they historically used or occupied.

Critics call the proposal a land grab worth billions of dollars in timber sales.

S. Arizona votes

On passage of H.R. 2578, which, among other things, would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent environmental laws on federal land within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico:

• Ron Barber, D - yes
• Raúl Grijalva, D - no

"Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation's southern border. There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process."
Rep. Ron Barber, newly elected Congressman from Tucson

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/house-oks-waiver-of-enviro-laws-at-borders/article_c12f164a-4d87-5f4d-babc-833a6c0808d8.html

House votes to ease environmental rules for border agents

The Hill
June 19, 2012
by Pete Kasperowicz

The House voted Tuesday to ease more than a dozen environmental rules for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, to make it easier for them to patrol federally owned border land.

The provision was one of several in a land use bill that was made up of 14 different bills, some from Republicans, some from Democrats. The border agent provision was easily the most controversial, but despite Democratic opposition, the House approved the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578, in a 232-188 vote.
The measure was ultimately supported by 16 Democrats in the final vote; 19 Republicans voted against it.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was the chief defender of the border provisions, and argued, as he has in the past, that current environmental rules prohibit CBP agents from accessing huge areas of land that enjoys federal protections. He said this prevents any serious enforcement of the southern border, as illegal immigrants have no problem crossing through environmentally protected land.

"One of the ironies is our border patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property, and no one objects to it," Bishop said. "It is only on federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal job."

Democrats sought to play up this language as an attempt to ignore environmental rules, and even expand unmanned drone use in the areas around border land.

"The GOP's 'drone zone' bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our national resources to the Department of Homeland Security," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.

"Passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal gravesides."

Bishop rejected this interpretation of the amendment. "It's cute, but it's also inaccurate," he said of Markey's presentation. But Bishop did offer an amendment to the bill that reduced the number of environmental laws that can be waived by CBP agents to 16, down from 36. That amendment was approved by voice vote.

At another moment in the debate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was arguing that a different section of the bill would allow for more logging along the Tongass River in Alaska, when she was interrupted by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who said millions of acres of forest land are already protected. That interruption led DeLauro, who never permitted Young to speak, to tell Young, "Just back off, OK?"

A full listing of the bills incorporated into H.R. 2578 can be seen here.

Immediately after the bill passed, members approved H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prevent a tribe in Arizona from developing a casino on their land. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and cleared that hurdle easily in a 343-78 vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233619-house-votes-to-ease-environmental-rules-for-border-agents

House GOP eyes omnibus package including border bill, Tongass land deal

E&E Daily
June 13, 2012
by Phil Taylor

The House as early as next week could begin debate on a package of more than a dozen lands bills sure to spark heated debate over issues ranging from national security to tribal economic development, endangered species protections and access to federal beaches, among other issues.

The House Rules Committee yesterdayannounced it is accepting amendments to a public lands omnibus that includes controversial proposals to lift environmental protections along the Mexican and Canadian borders, to allow conveyance of prime timberlands in Alaska's Tongass National Forest and to overturn a National Park Service plan restricting motorized access on a North Carolina seashore.

The panel said it could meet next week to pass a rule governing debate on amendments.

The package includes Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Chairman Rob Bishop's (R-Utah)H.R. 1505, which would exempt the Department of Homeland Security from dozens of conservation laws along a 100-mile swath of the nation's borders.

It also includes Rep. Don Young's (R-Alaska)H.R. 1408, which would allow a southeast Alaska native corporation to acquire lands in the Tongass from outside the areas it was allowed to select in a 1971 settlement.

The package also containsH.R. 4094, a bipartisan measure that seeks to roll back a Park Service plan to restrict beach driving at Cape Hatteras National Seashore to protect endangered piping plovers and sea turtles (Greenwire, June 7).

Also included is Rep. Raul Labrador's (R-Idaho)H.R. 4234, which would streamline permitting for ranchers who graze cattle on public lands.

Environmental groups have come out strongly against most of the bills in the package, particularly Bishop's, which opponents claim is overly broad, and Young's, which is criticized for allowing clear-cut logging of old-growth trees.

"It's an equal opportunity offender, from our perspective, in the expanse of what they're trying to propose," said Bobby McEnaney, a senior public lands analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It looks like Republicans are trying to hit the Earth with an asteroid."

Speaking in opposition to H.R. 4094, by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Kristin Brengel, legislative director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said, "Cape Hatteras National Seashore has more people visiting the beaches and more nesting shore birds and turtles." She added, "The National Park Service plan was put in place after extensive scientific review and four years of input from park visitors, fisherman, local government officials and the public."

Ben Lamb, a board member for the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association in Montana, said Bishop's bill could compromise access to the backcountry along hundreds of miles of the state's Canadian border. "There are certainly a lot of hunters who are very concerned about this legislation," he said.

Cindy Shogan, executive director for the Alaska Wilderness League, said Young's bill is "out of touch with reality."

"Senator [Lisa] Murkowski [D-Alaska] listened to her constituents and made changes based on their input, while Representative Young's bill includes no conservation lands and has increased the acreage to be logged and is the most detrimental bill yet for the small communities in southeast Alaska," she said. "This bill will be [dead on arrival] on the Senate side."

Sponsors of the bills say legislation is needed to curb a regulatory overreach that has closed businesses, has stifled national security and threatens jobs for those who make a living off public lands.

"If you do nothing, you're still turning over enormous swaths of land to the drug cartels that don't care about the Endangered Species Act, that don't care about wilderness designations," Bishop said last month about H.R. 1505, which he said would bolster environmental protections along the border.

McEnaney said the package's timing came somewhat as a surprise, given that House leaders have already indicated they intend to take up legislation next week that would ease environmental regulations and significantly expand the production of oil and gas on public lands (Greenwire, May 25).

Given the packed agenda, the public lands package could easily be pushed to the following week.

http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2012/06/13/2

Some see border security bill as threat to ecology, preservation

May 1, 2012
Houston Chronicle
by Tony Freemantle
Imagine sitting on a rock at Big Bend National Park gazing out over the Rio Grande at the Santa Elena Canyon on a clear day, Mexico so close you could reach out and touch it. Immemorial silence cloaks the soaring cliffs, broken only by the caw of a raven above and the rustle of the reeds in the river.

Then imagine the buzzy whine of a Customs and Border Protection four-wheeler patrolling the sandy banks, or the growl of a grader carving a road into the Chihuahuan Desert to a forward operating base, or a government helicopter bristling with surveillance equipment hovering overhead.

Hard to imagine?

A bill making its way through Congress would, in the interests of national security, bequeath to the Department of Homeland Security complete control of all federal lands in a coast-to-coast zone 100 miles south of the Canadian border and 100 miles north of the Mexican border from California to the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah with strong Republican support, is being touted as a necessary step in securing the nation's borders. But it is also being roundly condemned as a thinly veiled attempt to "gut a century's worth" of environmental laws aimed at preserving public lands, historic sites and national monuments.

In essence, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act gives DHS, or more specifically U.S. Customs and Border Protection, authority to build fences, roads and operating bases, to use aircraft and to install surveillance equipment and sensors in some of the most pristine, environmentally sensitive lands in the nation - including Big Bend and Guadalupe national parks and Padre Island National Seashore in Texas.

And to clear the way for its stewardship of public lands, the agency would be exempt from compliance with more than 30 environmental laws - among them the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The bill has cleared committees in the House and is on the calendar for a vote on the floor. There is not yet a companion bill in the Senate.

'Really unnecessary'

Bishop and the other sponsors, including Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, argue that CBP's mandate to secure the nation's borders is being "thwarted" by the need to consult with and obtain permission from federal land managers - chiefly the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture - before conducting operations.

"The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has found that less than half of the U.S.-Mexico border is under the operational control of the Border Patrol," Smith said in a statement. "At the same time, the Obama Administration prevents the Border Patrol from accessing federal lands in the name of environmental preservation. Because the Border Patrol is prohibited from securing federal lands, drug smugglers and human traffickers trample the earth and terrorize communities."

Opponents, including the Department of the Interior, CBP and national environmental organizations, charge that the proposed legislation is an "overreach," since a 2006 memorandum of understanding between border security agencies and federal land mangers already establishes the framework for cooperation between them.

"This is a solution looking for a problem," said Dan Millis, borderlands program coordinator for the Sierra Club. "There is already a framework in place for Border Patrol to work with public land management. If Border Patrol doesn't even have to try to work with managers, we will see a huge proliferation of roads, forward operating bases and fences on public lands."

The Coalition of National Parks Retirees is more blunt. The legislation would "gut a century's worth of land protection" laws and open up "millions of pristine acres of national parks" to unregulated intrusion.

"It's a really, really unnecessary bill," said Joan Anzelmo, a former superintendent of the Colorado National Monuments and board member of the organization. "It's an incredible assault on our national parks."

Other parks

In addition to Big Bend and Guadalupe parks in Texas, some of the other federal lands that fall within the 100-mile security zone, and hence under control of DHS, include Saguaro National Park in Arizona, Joshua Tree National Park in California, Olympic National Park in Washington, Glacier National Park in Montana, Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota and Acadia National Park in Maine.

Bishop believes his bill will end a "turf war" between Border Patrol and federal land mangers who use environmental laws to block efforts to secure the nation's borders.

"What I want to do is get the Border Patrol what they need to secure the border," Bishop said, "and they tell me that what they need more than money and people is access. There are enormous swaths of public land that have effectively been ceded over to the drug cartels."

The DHS already has been granted waivers from a slew of environmental laws in order to build the controversial "fence" along certain sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which environmentalists charge has already cause significant damage to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas.

Giving control of all lands within 100 miles of the borders to a single agency is unnecessary, they argue, and poses a significant danger.

"This is worse than misguided policy, although it is certainly misguided," said Kevin Dahl, the Arizona project manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. "It's a real danger to the parks because it means that the people who have made a career of public land management are not in control."

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Some-see-border-security-bill-as-threat-to-3519901.php#page-1

House Republicans back Homeland Security powers in border parks

Boston Herald
April 19, 2012
by Julie Cart

LOS ANGELES — House Republicans are backing legislation in Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security control of more than 50 national parks and forests within 100 miles of the U.S. borders.

The legislation involves a sweep of land along the frontier with Canada and Mexico, but exempts state land, private property and federal holdings used for mining, livestock grazing and timber harvesting. The new authority would carve through 54 national parks, including Joshua Tree, Saguaro, Acadia and Glacier.

The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, sponsored by conservative Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, would give Border Patrol and Customs agents and other federal officials the right to suspend any federal law on land managed by the departments of Interior and Agriculture. It would give Homeland Security the right to conduct any activity or construct any facility required to secure the border.

Although stalled in the House and with little hope in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the legislation demonstrates the intentions of Republicans as the November elections approach.

Park advocates say the legislation overreaches, calling it unnecessary because Homeland Security already has the power to suspend laws that inhibit its operations. They say the bill will override 36 federal laws that protect cultural and historic sites, wildlife and valued landscapes.

"As American families head to their national parks, we want to sound the alarm about this shocking legislation," said Joan Anzelmo, a board member for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. "We think the legislative proposal is a direct assault on our national parks. It would affect every aspect of the day-to-day park operations. It’s unprecedented in the history of the agency."

Some in Congress have argued that environmental laws such as the Wilderness Act, which prohibits motorized access to protected land, impede the ability of border agents to operate freely. Further, proponents say, the few federal departments and multiple jurisdictions along the border make coordination difficult.

But the Border Patrol told Congress last year that it had forged agreements with the National Park Service and other land managers and that the agencies have been working cooperatively. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress last month, saying the bill "is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120419house_republicans_back_homeland_security_powers_in_border_parks/

Napolitano Blasts Border Access Bill

Congressional Quarterly
March 8, 2012
By Jennifer Scholtes

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano leveled pointed criticism Thursday at a House border security bill, in a rare divergence from the administration’s usual policy of refraining from passing judgment on pending legislation.

Several Democratic lawmakers have already voiced opposition to the measure (HR 1505), which would give Customs and Border Protection the authority to patrol and set up physical infrastructure on federally protected land within 100 miles of the United States’ southern and northern borders. Officials from the Border Patrol have also told lawmakers that they don’t feel such legislation is necessary, as they have worked out access deals with the environmental agencies that manage the lands.

But Napolitano and other Cabinet officials make it a practice to keep mum on specific measures pending in Congress, making it somewhat unusual that she told the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee the bill “is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”

“We don’t need it for our immediate Border Patrol needs,” she said. “We already have an agreement with the Department of Interior. If we’re doing a chase or there are exigent circumstances, we can go onto lands without having to seek prior approval or any of that.”

And given the nature of those areas, the secretary said she believes it is “highly appropriate” to consult with the Interior Department in carrying out those missions. Through interdepartmental cooperation, DHS has been able to address patrolling needs such as setting up surveillance towers and constructing roads on public lands, she said.

In 2006, the two departments signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure that border agents get the access they need to apprehend drug traffickers and illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States through protected lands. But the Government Accountability Office has reported that such coordination has not always been a smooth process.

A report GAO released last year said that Border Patrol access to some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of land management laws, according to many of the agents surveyed. Agents have sometimes been unable to obtain permits or permission to access areas in a timely manner because of delays due to environmental and historic property assessments, the report said.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has argued that environmental laws should not take precedent over national security. Bishop’s measure, which the House Natural Resources Committee approved in October in a party-line vote, has attracted nearly 60 Republican cosponsors, but not a single Democratic supporter.

Lawmakers have introduced several related bills this Congress, including a measure (HR 1922) approved by the House Homeland Security Border and Maritime Subcommittee last June that would provide CBP access to federal lands for routine patrols and for deploying temporary tactical infrastructure.

A broad border security bill (HR 1507) introduced by Rep. Jeff Flake and a companion measure (S 803) being pushed by fellow Arizona Republican John McCain in the Senate include similar language. Their proposals stipulate that the Agriculture and Interior department would have to provide CBP personnel immediate access to federal lands for security activities.

Of those measures, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he finds the Bishop bill “the most egregious.” The legislation, which would bar the Interior and Agriculture departments from impeding, prohibiting or restricting DHS activities, would give DHS “unprecedented power to do as it sees fit” on lands near the northern border Montana shares with Canada, Tester said.

“I think a one-size-fits-all approach in this particular instance — we both know the northern border and the southern border are two different borders — it doesn’t fit well,” Tester said. “I don’t think it’s about catching bad guys, I think it’s about allowing governmental agents to build roads and watch towers and buildings in places where other agencies, even tribal units, would not have any input.”

Bill giving Homeland Security reign on federal lands heats up Senate race

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

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

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

Environment key in border bill

San Antoanio Express-News
October 31, 2011
by Jason Buch


Both sides of a debate over a proposed law giving the Border Patrol more access to protected lands say they're trying to do what's right for the environment.

The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would waive laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act on federal lands within 100 miles of the border, affecting protected areas such as Big Bend National Park.

Environmentalists say the law could contribute to the decline of habitat for animals such as the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi, small wildcats whose range extends into South Texas. Proponents of the bill say restricting Border Patrol activity in federally protected borderlands just creates lanes for smugglers, who have no regard for the environment.

The act moved out of a House committee last month. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.

The bill by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, allows the Border Patrol to build roads and other infrastructure on federally protected lands by waiving more than two dozen environmental and historical regulations. Agents are inhibited in some places by not being able to move freely through federal lands, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing agents.

“The amount of trash and damage illegals are causing far outweighs any damage that Border Patrol agents would do,” Moran said. “Our position is, if federal agencies or state agencies say the Border Patrol can't go through a certain area, then the cartels or the smugglers are going to find out about that and exploit it, and it's going to do more damage to that area.”

Rosalinda Huey, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley, said the agency regularly works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ensuring that it has access to protected lands.

In South Texas, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge would be affected. Those are important stopovers for migratory birds, said Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club's Borderland Team.

It's also important that the limited habitat left for the ocelot and jaguarundi be protected, he said. The cats rely on small strips of vegetation along the river to travel between larger pieces of habitat.

“The big issue is just that (the Border Patrol) should be operating within the rule of law,” Nicol said. “It's kind of absurd to say that to enforce immigration laws ... they can violate any other law they want to.”

Nicol said he sees the bill more as an attempt to erode environmental regulations than to secure the border.

“These bills are not even about border security, because these are things the Border Patrol has not even asked for,” he said. “These are more generalized attacks on environmental regulation. They're basically just using border security as a convenient excuse because the average person says, ‘Do whatever you want to secure the border.'”

But Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said the bill was amended to only affect federal lands, limiting its impact on environmental regulations.

“By stopping the illegal activity along the border, we will protect American lives and preserve wilderness areas for future generations to enjoy,” Smith said in a statement.

Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat from Mercedes whose district includes some of the areas affected, said he'd need to see more evidence that the bill was needed before voting for it.

“I think we can allow the Border Patrol to do its work and at the same time protect our environment and our rare animals such as the jaguarundi, the ocelot and our migrating birds in deep South Texas,” Hinojosa said in a statement.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Environment-key-in-border-bill-2245425.php#ixzz1cSpbGBzI

Lawmakers seek waiver for border lands

Helena Independent Record
October 28, 2011
by Mike Dennison

As a fight brews in Washington, D.C., over a bill giving the U.S. Border Patrol unfettered access on federal lands near international borders, the issue also has become a political football in the campaign between U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and his Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg.

Rehberg is a co-sponsor of the House bill, which says the Department of Homeland Security shall have access to “any public land managed by the federal government” for activities to secure the border.

The bill also enables the department to “waive” a whole host of environmental protection laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Wilderness Act and more than two dozen others.

Rehberg says the bill is no big deal, and merely attempts to resolve a “turf battle” between Homeland Security and the departments of Interior and Agriculture, so the Border Patrol can have access to national forest, national park and other federal lands without having to ask permission.

“We’ve got pretty good access to the border on state and private lands, but face serious challenges on federal lands,” he says. “So, guess where the criminals set up their operations? On federal lands.”

Tester, as well as other Montana Democrats and Democratic groups, have roundly criticized the bill and Rehberg’s sponsorship, saying the measure gives too much power to Homeland Security, allowing the agency to use federal lands any way it chooses, with no public input or recourse.

“Rehberg’s proposal has very little to do with border security and everything to do with allowing the government to trample on rights, nullify existing laws and ignore public accountability in order to meet its own definition of homeland security,” says Aaron Murphy, a spokesman for Tester.

Murphy notes that the three agencies — Interior, Agriculture and Homeland Security — have had a “memorandum of understanding” in place since 2006, on cooperative security efforts on federal lands near the border. It’s working well and the bill isn’t needed, he says.

Rehberg and supporters of the bill, including groups that represent current and former Border Patrol agents, insist the bill is not an Orwellian takeover of public land, and say they don’t understand why Tester — a vocal proponent of border security — is taking a hard line against it.

They also say the U.S. Senate in 2009, with unanimous consent, supported a similar amendment that prohibited Interior Department funds from restricting Homeland Security’s enforcement of border laws or construction of a border fence.

Tester says the comparison isn’t accurate, because the 2009 amendment did not waive environmental laws, prevent public input or give Homeland Security a blank check to do whatever it wanted on public lands.

“If Homeland Security wanted to stop sales on Forest Service land, challenge tribal sovereignty, build watch-towers in Glacier Park or build roads across the Bob Marshall Wilderness, (Rehberg’s) bill allows it,” Murphy said.

Rehberg says these claims are overblown, and that he supported an amendment to the bill that would prevent Homeland Security from stopping approved uses of public land, such as grazing and recreation.

“Despite the hyperbole from environmental obstructionists, the Border Patrol is not empowered to strip-mine Glacier National Park or build eight-lane freeways through the wilderness,” he said. “We can strike a reasonable balance that acknowledges it’s better to allow access to law enforcement than leave our public lands and public safety at the mercy of criminals.”

http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/lawmakers-seek-waiver-for-border-lands/article_4f2d2b0e-012a-11e1-ae7b-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1c6qyG5Hk

Lawmakers say environmental laws should be waived for Border Patrol operations

Los Angeles Times / Associated Press
October 27, 2011


WASHINGTON — Federal agents trying to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border say they’re hampered by laws that keep them from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land because it falls under U.S. environmental protection, leaving it to wildlife — and illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed.

A growing number of lawmakers are saying such restrictions have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals. In recent weeks, three congressional panels, including two in the GOP-controlled House and one in the Democratic-controlled Senate, have moved to give the Border Patrol unfettered access to all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the border with Mexico.

Two of the panels expanded the legislation’s reach to include the border with Canada.

The votes signal a brewing battle in Congress that will determine whether border agents can disregard environmental protections as they do their job.

Dozens of environmental laws were waived for the building of the border fence, and activists say this is just another conservative attempt to find an excuse to do away with environmental protections.

But agents who have worked along the border say the laws crimp their power to secure the border.

Zack Taylor, a retired Border Patrol agent who lives about nine miles from the Arizona-Mexico border, said smugglers soon learn the areas that agents are least likely to frequent.

“The (smuggling) route stays on public lands from the border to Maricopa County,” Taylor said, referring to the state’s most populous county. “The smugglers have free rein. It has become a lawless area.”

Environmental groups said lawmakers lining up to support the legislation have routinely opposed the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and dozens of other laws, and they accused the lawmakers of using illegal immigration as the latest excuse to gut protections.

“For every problem that’s out there in society, there’s some extremists in Congress who say the solution is, ‘Well, let’s roll back the environmental laws, let’s open up the public lands,’” said Paul Spitler, spokesman for the Wilderness Society. “It doesn’t comport to reality, but it fits their mindset that it’s simply the environmental regulations that are holding back America.”

Nearly 40 percent of the land on the U.S.-Mexico border and about a quarter of the land on the U.S.-Canadian border is public land, including Big Bend National Park in Texas and Glacier National Park in Montana. Driving is prohibited on those parts of the land that are designated wilderness areas.

Wildlife officials say vehicle use can be particularly hazardous in the desert. Water gathers in the tire tracks instead of in natural pools and evaporates more quickly, leading to less vegetation and less available food. Some areas, such as Big Bend and the desert farther west, are deadly to traverse in certain months and immigrants and smugglers avoid them.

The wilderness areas also have other restrictions on development. Border patrol agents, for example, must get permission from other federal agencies before maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Federal auditors found it can take months to get that permission.

“What the Border Patrol says they really need down there is not necessarily more manpower or money,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose bill easing the restrictions passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. “They need more east-west access on those public lands.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored an amendment that requires the Agriculture and Interior departments to give Border Patrol personnel immediate access to federal lands on the southern border for security activities, including for routine motorized patrols. The amendment passed a Senate committee with the support of five Democrats and eight Republicans.

McCain told colleagues that up to 100 people sit on mountaintops near the border serving as lookouts for smugglers, suggesting that improved law enforcement access on those mountains would deter the lookouts.

“What he says is absolutely true,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who visited Arizona with McCain. “For the life of me, I can’t understand the hesitancy on the part of Interior or Agriculture to provide access to border security guards.”

Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., sponsored a similar amendment that extends the law to the Canadian border as well, and it passed by a voice vote, which is usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation.

During a House subcommittee hearing in April, Ron Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said he had “no complaints” about environmental laws.

But George McCubbin, president of the union that represents about 17,000 Border Patrol agents and support staff, likened current policy to telling city police officers they can’t patrol a particular neighborhood.

“If they want to get serious about this problem on the border, they can’t be restricting areas we go in,” said McCubbin, who works in Casa Grande, Ariz. “Don’t let us there and you have nothing but the bad element going through that area.”

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, reported that supervisors at 17 of 26 Border Patrol stations along the Mexican border said access to federal lands had been limited because of environmental restrictions. Yet, the vast majority of the agents in charge also said that they were generally able to adjust their patrols without sacrificing effectiveness.

Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups cite the GAO’s findings in arguing against giving the Border Patrol authority to operate as it sees fit on federal lands.

“The record is clear. The problem this bill claims to be solving does not exist,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. “So, if this is not about border security, what is it about? It’s about undermining fundamental environmental protections for millions of Americans.”

Bishop said federal agents would be better stewards of sensitive lands than illegal immigrants and smugglers.

“What is so ironic is that the environmental degradation is not being done by the Border Patrol,” Bishop said. “It’s being done by the illegals who are coming across.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/lawmakers-say-environmental-laws-should-be-waived-for-border-patrol-operations/2011/10/27/gIQAcu4ALM_story.html

Republican bill would allow Border Patrol to ignore environmental laws

McClatchy Newspapers / Kansas City Star
October 23, 2011
By ROB HOTAKAINEN

WASHINGTON -House Republicans want to give the U.S. Border Patrol unprecedented authority to ignore 36 environmental laws on federal land in a 100-mile zone along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

If the legislation is approved, the Border Patrol would not have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 32 other federal laws in such popular places as Olympic National Park, Glacier Park, the Great Lakes and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.

Under the GOP plan, the Border Patrol would have free rein to do such things as build roads and offices, put up fences, set up surveillance equipment and sensors, and use aircraft and vehicles to patrol in all national parks, forests and federal land in the zone.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the Border Patrol "has become encumbered with layers of environmental regulations," making it difficult to deal with drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals who are targeting public lands along the U.S. borders.

The committee passed the plan on a 26-17 party-line vote this month.

A vote by the full House is expected soon, though no date has been set, and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.

In Washington state, where the zone would include nearly half the state, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is questioning why such a law is needed. She noted that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol, has not asked for the change.

"The current approach, partnering with sister agencies - Interior and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) - seems a reasonable approach," Gregoire said.

Environmental groups say they're alarmed by the proposal.

Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of public lands, called the plan a sweeping waiver of environmental laws that would allow a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands and hurt water quality.

"We're talking about waiving laws that protect habitat and clean air and clean water in national parks and other beloved places that Americans really cherish - and that belong to all of us," she said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee on forests and public lands Subcommittee and the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation is needed because the Border Patrol does not have sufficient access to millions of acres of federally controlled land.

"The policies of the United States unfortunately and unwittingly make it easier for illegals to come across public lands," he said.

While the Border Patrol has access to federal lands, it must follow procedures set up by other agencies. The bill would change that by giving the Border Patrol immediate access to any federal land. And it would specifically bar the U.S. Department of Interior and the USDA from "impeding, prohibiting or restricting" any work done by the Border Patrol in the 100-mile zone. The law would expire in five years.

At a hearing of Bishop's subcommittee in July, the Obama administration said it the legislation is unnecessary.

Kim Thorsen, a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Interior, said a better way to protect the border would be to use "the current approach of collaborating among departments and using the best expertise in each to solve problems."

"We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive," she said. "We are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can - and should - do both."

John Leshy, a professor at the U.C. Hastings College of the Law, told the subcommittee that he questions whether such a law would be constitutional, calling the bill "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen."


"I firmly believe this legislation goes way, way beyond what is necessary and proper, in our constitutional system, to enforce the immigration laws," Leshy said.

Rep Edward Markey, D-Mass., the ranking minority member the Natural Resources Committee, called the bill shortsighted and "just nonsense."

"Expert after expert has explained to House Republicans that waiving all environmental protections affecting the air, water and entire ecosystems within 100 miles of our borders is not the answer to border security challenges, but they turned a deaf ear with this misguided legislation," Markey said.

Supporters of the legislation have enlisted support from a wide variety of groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, United Four-Wheel Drive Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Motorcycle Industry Council. The motorcycle group said an unsecured border "that allows terrorists or other lawbreakers to roam our public lands represents a real threat to riders who wish to responsibly recreate near these lands."

At first, backers wanted to create a 100-mile zone that would extend around the entire nation. But as a compromise, they scaled back the proposal, dropping off federal land that borders the West and East coasts.

As a result, the zone would stretch from Washington to Maine in the north, and from California to Texas in the south.

The bill, which the GOP calls the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, is part of the 2010 "Pledge to America," in which Republicans vowed to give the Border Patrol more "tools and authorities to establish operational control" along the U.S. borders.

Hastings called it an attempt "to prioritize national security over bureaucratic red tape."

Danowitz said House Republicans are trying to use national security as a reason to weaken clean air and water laws, knowing that such proposals would never pass on their own. And she called the bill part of a GOP trend, representing one of many pieces of anti-environmental legislation moving in Hastings' committee and the GOP-led House.

"The number of proposals to roll back key environmental protections is so large that almost anything can happen," Danowitz said. "And this is largely going on without real public awareness. That combination is not a good one."

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3224702/republican-bill-would-allow-border.html#ixzz1bhneiMNH

Bill before U.S. House would give Border Patrol unprecedented powers in Olympic National Park

Peninsula Daily News
October 16, 2011
By Paul Gottlieb

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Border Patrol could build roads in Olympic National Park and other wilderness areas without approval from the federal departments of Interior and Agriculture under legislation that has survived a key congressional committee's vote.

House leadership is deciding if the National Security and Lands Protection Act, approved 26-17 on Oct. 5 by the House Committee on Natural Resources, will go to the House floor for a vote, committee spokeswoman Crystal Feldman said Friday.

The bill, HR 1505, would grant broad new powers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the umbrella agency for the Border Patrol — within 100 miles of the northern border with Canada and southern border with Mexico.

Under the provisions of the bill, the agency would have “immediate access” to 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).”

It allows the agency to waive the Endangered Species Act and three dozen other mostly environmental laws within that zone and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which guarantees access to religious sites and protection of “sacred objects.”

Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Bishop of Utah sponsored HR 1505 and chairs the Natural Resources Committee.

George Behan, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, whose constituency includes Clallam and Jeff­erson counties, said Friday that it's unlikely the bill will gain any traction.

“It's way too broad and is not expected to move anywhere other than [Bishop's] committee,” Behan said.

But it's created somewhat of a stir on the North Olympic Peninsula, where increased Border Patrol staffing and patrols sparked the formation of Port Angeles-based Stop the Checkpoints, which has picketed the site of a new, under-construction $5.7 million Border Patrol station two miles east of downtown Port Angeles.

“To me, this is like using the fear of immigration and terrorism to do away with environmental protections as part of the overall right-wing movement,” Lois Danks, the group's organizer, said last week.

Supporters of the proposed law said the legislation would put the Border Patrol on a level playing field with drug smugglers and human traffickers on the nation's southern border who have no regard for laws, environmental or otherwise, and can act with impunity in such regions as designated wilderness areas, where motorized transport is forbidden.

“Cartels have figured out that the Border Patrol can't maintain a routine presence on federal lands,” said Melissa Subbotin, spokeswoman for Bishop.

The bill seeks to achieve “operational control” over international land borders.

It would prevent the secretary of the interior, who manages Olympic National Park and other national parks, and the secretary of agriculture, who manages national forests — including Olympic National Forest — from blocking U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts to “achieve operational control” over a 100-mile band south of the Canadian border.

Operational control was defined by U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, testifying Feb. 15 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, as “the ability to detect, identify, classify and then respond to and resolve illegal entries along our U.S. Borders.”

To that end, the Border Patrol would be allowed to conduct vehicle patrols of designated wilderness areas, where motorized vehicles are otherwise banned.

The Border Patrol now has vehicle access to existing roads in Olympic National Park, said Blaine Sector spokesman Richard Sinks.

Sinks said the Border Patrol maintains “situational awareness” of wilderness areas by working with the Forest Service, Department of Interior and county, state and tribal law enforcement agencies and “is continually analyzing the threat to and through the wilderness park areas.”

But what about building a road in Olympic National Park where there isn't one now?

Border Patrol spokeswoman Kerry Rogers said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.

And park officials have not yet studied the bill and its implications, park spokeswoman Barb Maynes said Friday.

The law would open up to Border Patrol vehicular activity to the 44,258-acre Buckhorn Wilderness Area, which abuts Olympic National Park's eastern boundary, and the 166,825-acre Brothers Wilderness Area in Olympic National Forest in Jefferson County — where motorized vehicle traffic is not allowed.

That doesn't sit well with the Washington Wilderness Coalition, whose conservation director called the legislation “an extreme kind of overreaction.”

“It's like heating your house with a flamethrower,” Tom Uniack said, fearful the legislation could open the door to more widespread abandonment of “cornerstone environmental laws.”

The legislation was not aimed at activities on the U.S.-Canadian border, Subb­otin said.

“It was written specifically to address issues along the southern border, but it's hard to exclude the northern border,” she said.

“This would remove the checkerboard pattern of where the Border Patrol can and can't patrol.”

Funding for such projects as roads also could be an issue.

Congress “would still have to appropriate funds” for road-building projects, Feldman said.

“The only reason they would construct roads is if there is criminal activity going on,” she added.

“They would need to ensure operational control at the border if there is evidence of criminal activity.”

Asked how likely it is that the Border Patrol would waive environmental and land management laws along the northern border, Feldman said, “It's an unlikely site for large-scale illegal entry.”

If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, the law would sunset in five years.

“That does not change my concerns at all,” Uniack said.

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20111016/NEWS/310169986/bill-before-us-house-would-give-border-patrol-unprecedented-powers

No Easy Path for Bill to Exempt Border Patrol From Environmental Laws

Congressional Quarterly
October 11, 2011
By Tim Starks

A Republican push to exempt the Homeland Security Department from observing environmental laws along the border has gained traction in several congressional committees in recent weeks. But with critics speaking out against the measure and Congress focused on other priorities, further movement is uncertain.

The proposal, a 2010 GOP campaign pledge, faces resistance from the Obama administration, environmental groups and some border state Democrats. Further complicating its prospects are the broader immigration debate, Congress’ preoccupation with the budget deficit and the need for supporters to find a suitable legislative vehicle.

In their 2010 “Pledge to America,” House Republicans vowed to “ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.”

Last week, the House Natural Resources Committee approved, on a party-line 26-17 vote, a bill that would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection authority to patrol, build roads and fences and construct temporary offices in national parks, forests and other public lands within 100 miles of U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico.

The measure, sponsored by Utah Republican Rob Bishop, would block the Interior and Agriculture departments from holding the border agency to more than 30 environmental statutes, some decades old, including the National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190), the Clean Water Act (PL 100-4) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (PL 94-580).

Also last week, House Homeland Security Chairman Peter T. King, R-N.Y., a cosponsor of Bishop’s bill, introduced a reauthorizing bill for the Homeland Security Department (HR 3116) that includes a similar provision. The language mirrors an amendment offered by Arizona Republican John McCain that made its way into the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee-approved Homeland Security authorization bill (S 1546).

Next Steps Unclear

Versions of the language were adopted by both the House and Senate in previous years as amendments to other bills, but the provision did not become law.

Bishop has yet to discuss the next step for his legislation with GOP leadership. But he is not worried about support from GOP leaders in the long term.

“The only problem we have is not the bill itself but the atmosphere around here,” said Bishop, chairman of the Natural Resources subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. “Everything has been about dealing with the budget and appropriations. It has sucked the air out of every other issue. This is not a budget issue. That’s the only negative as far as time, but there’s commitment to this concept and idea.”

But the bill has run into opposition from environmental advocates, administration officials and some Democrats.

“This legislation represents a serious threat to a long list of bedrock environmental protections that for decades have safeguarded the health and well-being of Americans,” Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group’s director of U.S. public lands, said after Bishop’s bill won committee approval. “Improving national security and border protection is critical to our country, but waiving core conservation measures will not accomplish this goal.”

Kim Thorsen, the Interior Department’s deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management, told Bishop’s subcommittee in July that the bill could do serious harm. “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 [the Bureau of Land Management’s] National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness,” Thorsen said in written testimony. Thorsen added that the bill also could also affect water channels, levees, canals and bridges along a 1,000-mile stretch of the Colorado River that are required in order to fulfil U.S. water-sharing obligations with U.S. and Mexican users.

Border State Concerns

Some border state Democrats also have cast the bill in harsh terms. At the July hearing, subcommittee member Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona said the bill “may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here.”

Bishop said he has altered his bill to reflect several concerns voiced by critics. But he noted that Mexican drug cartels are causing environmental damage along the border, citing suspicions among U.S. law enforcement that cartel-tied drug manufacturers are behind numerous wildfires.

Bishop said environmental protection cannot be the only priority. “On the border there is something more important than wilderness designation, and that’s patrolling the border and trying to protect people’s lives,” he said.

If Bishop’s bill does not advance, it is unclear how the GOP will make good on its pledge. Although similar language was included in both the House and Senate homeland security authorization bills, no such authorization bill has ever been enacted.

Bishop’s border bill advances over Democrats’ opposition

Salt Lake Tribune
November 5, 2011
by Matt Canham

Washington • A congressional committee approved a bill Wednesday that would allow the Border Patrol to sidestep environmental laws as it sought to block drug smugglers, human traffickers and undocumented immigrants from sneaking into the United States from Mexico.

The legislation is a top priority for Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who argues that restrictions on public lands have inhibited U.S. agents from tracking and arresting suspected criminals.

“This is about providing the Border Patrol with the tools they want and they need to achieve the mission that we gave them,” he said, before the Natural Resources Committee approved his bill on a vote of 26 to 17.

Border Patrol officials have publicly disagreed with the need for the law. And Democrats on the committee described the bill as a veiled attempt at gutting protections on wild lands.

“What in the world does the Migratory Bird Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act have to do with the ability of the Customs Department to enforce the U.S. Border?” asked Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J. “The entire point of this legislation has nothing to do with border security, with human trafficking, with smuggling. It is a clear and simple attack on environmental protection legislation.”

The bill now goes before the full House where it has a decent chance of passage, as Republicans hold a sizable majority.

Bishop asked the committee to adopt some changes to his legislation that he hoped would ease some concerns. He limited its scope to 100 miles from the borders with Canada and Mexico, eliminating any impact on the coastlines or with Hawaii.

His amendment also limited the federal agencies that could waive environmental laws to only Customs and Border Protection, and only for the purposes of building patrol roads, fences, surveillance towers or to use aircraft.

If passed, the legislation would expire after five years, giving Congress a chance to see if it was meeting its goals.

“We can no longer turn our backs on the violence, environmental degradation and rampant criminal activity occurring on our public lands,” Bishop said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52681101-90/border-bill-environmental-legislation.html.csp

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