Overview

Title

To address the public safety issues and environmental destruction currently impacting Federal lands along the southern border, enhance border security through the construction of navigable roads on Federal lands along the southern border, provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to Federal lands to improve the safety and effectiveness of enforcement activities, allow States to place temporary barriers on Federal land to secure the southern border, reduce the massive trash accumulations and environmental degradation along the southern border, reduce the cultivation of illegal cannabis on Federal lands, mitigate wildland fires caused by illegal immigration, and prohibit migrant housing on Federal lands.

ELI5 AI

The FLASH Act is like a plan to make the border between the U.S. and Mexico safer by building roads and putting up fences, cleaning up trash, stopping people from growing secret plants, and helping to prevent fires, while also making sure the law is fair to everyone.

Summary AI

H.R. 1820, known as the “Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland Act” or “FLASH Act,” aims to enhance border security and reduce environmental damage along the U.S.-Mexico border. It proposes building navigable roads on federal lands for better enforcement, allowing temporary barriers, and providing more access for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The bill also seeks to address and reduce trash accumulation, illegal cannabis cultivation, and wildfires caused by illegal immigration while prohibiting housing for undocumented immigrants on federal lands. Additionally, the legislation includes initiatives to manage vegetation and reduce wildfire risk along the southern border.

Published

2025-03-04
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2025-03-04
Package ID: BILLS-119hr1820ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
22
Words:
8,186
Pages:
42
Sentences:
227

Language

Nouns: 2,668
Verbs: 616
Adjectives: 432
Adverbs: 56
Numbers: 272
Entities: 535

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.49
Average Sentence Length:
36.06
Token Entropy:
5.58
Readability (ARI):
21.22

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The bill before the United States Congress, titled the "Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland Act" (FLASH Act), seeks to address several public safety and environmental concerns on federal lands along the U.S.-Mexico southern border. The legislation proposes enhancing border security through the construction of navigable roads and installations, allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) access to wilderness areas, and permitting states to place temporary barriers on federal lands. Furthermore, the bill aims to reduce environmental degradation, such as trash accumulation and illegal cannabis cultivation, mitigate wildfires caused by illegal immigration, and prohibit migrant housing on these federal lands.

Summary of Significant Issues

One of the bill's notable issues is the significant penalties associated with illegal activities, like cannabis cultivation using non-compliant pesticides, where violators could face fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment for up to 20 years. Such harsh measures raise concerns about proportionality and civil liberties. Additionally, the bill includes controversial provisions prohibiting the use of federal funds to provide housing for certain non-citizens on federal land. This could lead to legal and ethical challenges regarding immigrant rights.

The bill further grants broad access to CBP in performing various activities in wilderness areas, which might conflict with environmental preservation goals. The potential for environmental degradation and legal challenges is considerable. There is also a lack of clarity in key definitions, such as "specified alien" and "illegal entry areas," which could result in inconsistent enforcement and concerns about fairness.

Moreover, the financial implications of the bill lack specificity, particularly regarding the construction of roads and initiatives to handle illegal activities. This ambiguity might lead to budget overruns and concerns about wasteful spending. Lastly, the requirement to report the countries of origin of specified aliens could raise privacy and ethical concerns.

Broad Public Impact

Broadly, the bill seeks to enhance national security and address environmental challenges on the U.S.-Mexico border. However, the measures might strain relationships with immigrant communities and provoke public debate about civil liberties and human rights. On one hand, the bill could lead to improved border security and environmental protection, benefiting communities near the border by potentially reducing crime and ecological degradation. On the other hand, the stringent penalties and enforcement measures might draw criticism for being overly punitive and discriminatory.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For law enforcement and border security agencies, the bill provides expanded powers and resources, which could improve their operational efficiency and effectiveness in securing the border. This might be viewed positively by those prioritizing national security concerns.

Environmentalists and conservationists, however, might express concern over the impact of increased border security measures on wilderness preservation. The potential environmental degradation due to increased vehicle and technological incursions into protected areas poses a significant concern.

Immigrant rights organizations and advocacy groups might challenge the bill on the grounds of disproportionate penalties and restrictions on housing, viewing these measures as uncompassionate and discriminatory.

Local communities near the border might experience both positive and negative outcomes. While enhanced security could bring a sense of safety, the impact on local economies and social dynamics due to the stricter regulations and potential displacement issues could be significant.

Overall, the FLASH Act embodies a contentious mix of security measures and environmental concerns, balancing national security interests with potential civil liberty implications, and poses complex questions about federal and state roles in managing border-related issues.

Financial Assessment

The FLASH Act, or H.R. 1820, includes several financial references that warrant closer examination. The bill proposes specific financial commitments, primarily aimed at enhancing border security and environmental management along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Spending and Appropriations

Section 204 discusses penalties related to illegal activities on federal lands, establishing fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to a year for harming the environment. Although not strictly an appropriation, these fines indicate potential revenue or cost associated with enforcement.

In Section 211, the bill authorizes an appropriation of $16,037,000 annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2032 to address the environmental impact of illegal cannabis cultivation on federal lands. This substantial annual allocation is meant to fund "Trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Response Initiatives" to clean up and manage cannabis cultivation impacts.

Section 221 authorizes $3,660,000 annually for the same fiscal years to fund the "Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative." This initiative aims to manage vegetation along the southern border to reduce wildfire risks and enhance border security operations.

Financial Allocations and Identified Issues

One of the critical issues highlighted in the bill is the lack of specificity in financial allocations, which could lead to budget overruns. For instance, while the bill outlines large sums for specific initiatives, it lacks detailed budget plans for constructing navigable roads or temporary barriers, as described in Sections 101 and 211. This could potentially lead to inefficient use of resources or fiscal mismanagement.

Additionally, the heavy fines and penalties, such as the $250,000 fine in Sections 213 and 214, might be viewed as disproportionately severe, raising concerns about fairness and equity. These large fines, intended as a deterrent, could face challenges regarding their effectiveness and fairness.

The lack of defined oversight measures, as seen in Sections 105, 202, and 221, suggests potential inefficiencies in financial management. Without clear accountability frameworks, there is a risk that allocated funds might not achieve their intended impact, leading to wasted resources.

Conclusion

In summary, H.R. 1820 incorporates significant financial appropriations and fines aimed at addressing border security and environmental issues. However, the bill may encounter challenges related to financial oversight, budget clarity, and proportionality of penalties. These financial elements are crucial for the effective implementation of the bill's provisions and should be carefully monitored to ensure responsible and targeted use of taxpayer funds.

Issues

  • The bill includes significant penalties, including imprisonment up to 20 years and fines up to $250,000, for illegal cultivation of cannabis on public lands using pesticides not in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This could be viewed as overly harsh and raise concerns about proportionality and civil liberties (Sections 213 and 214).

  • There is a lack of clarity and potential ambiguity in key definitions such as 'specified alien', 'covered Federal lands', and 'illegal entry areas'. These ambiguities could lead to inconsistent application and enforcement, raising concerns about fairness and legal challenges (Sections 101, 104, 204, 301, and 302).

  • The prohibition on providing housing to 'specified aliens' on federal land through any federal funding is potentially controversial as it could lead to legal and ethical challenges regarding immigrant rights and humanitarian considerations (Section 302).

  • The broad permissions granted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for various activities in wilderness areas might conflict with the preservation goals under the Wilderness Act, potentially leading to environmental degradation and legal challenges (Section 102).

  • The revocation of the lease at Floyd Bennett Field without clear justification in the text might impact local planning and development, potentially leading to legal disputes and public backlash (Section 302).

  • The section on penalties and fines for immigration-related activities on federal lands may be seen as discriminatory as it specifically targets 'aliens without lawful immigration status' and could face legal challenges (Section 204).

  • The financial implications of the bill lack specificity, including potential costs of constructing navigable roads, temporary barriers, and initiatives to handle illegal cannabis cultivation. This could lead to budget overruns and raise concerns about wasteful spending (Sections 101, 211, and 221).

  • The significant increase in penalties for illegal pesticide application related to cannabis cultivation could be seen as overly punitive, especially given the lack of clear enforcement guidelines or definitions (Section 212).

  • Lack of specified oversight or accountability measures for the interagency cooperative agreement and implementation of strategies such as trash reduction and the Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative could lead to inefficiencies or misuse of resources (Sections 105, 202, and 221).

  • The requirement to report countries of origin for specified aliens in connection with housing provisions could raise privacy and ethical concerns about the disclosure of sensitive information and potential discrimination (Section 303).

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of this bill establishes its short title, allowing it to be officially referred to as the “Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland Act” or simply the “FLASH Act”.

2. Table of contents Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The document outlines the table of contents for a legislative act aimed at enhancing border security and addressing environmental issues on federal lands. It includes various sections and titles covering border security measures, environmental protection actions related to trash and contaminants, and initiatives to prevent environmental damage from wildfires near the southern border, along with provisions for protecting communities from immigration-related issues.

3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section defines several key terms used in the bill, such as "appropriate congressional committees," which are specific groups in the House and Senate, and "border state," which is a state next to the southern border. It also explains "covered Federal lands" as U.S.-owned lands near the southern border, managed by certain agencies, excluding lands held for Indian Tribes. It defines "operational control" as referenced in a past law and identifies who the "Secretary concerned" is based on land jurisdiction. Finally, it defines the "southern border" as the border between the United States and Mexico.

4. Savings clause Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The savings clause clarifies that the Act does not give new powers to limit legal activities like grazing, hunting, and recreation on federal lands, affect state or private lands, or alter agreements with Indian Tribes. It also ensures that the Act does not interfere with border security measures conducted by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense.

101. Enhancing border security through the construction of navigable roads along Federal border lands Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section explains that to improve border security, the government will build and maintain roads near the southern border, following certain guidelines to allow for better access and control by authorities. Additionally, it outlines plans to incorporate technology like fencing and surveillance, and dictates adherence to environmental regulations throughout the process.

102. U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to wilderness areas Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is allowed to perform certain activities within wilderness areas to secure the international land borders of the United States. These activities include using vehicles, aircraft, and technology, conducting patrols, and building roads, while aiming to protect the natural character of the wilderness areas as much as possible.

103. Placement of movable, temporary structures on certain Federal land to secure the southern border of the United States Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines that a Border State does not need special permission to place temporary structures on federal land along the U.S. southern border if they notify the Secretary at least 45 days in advance. However, these structures can only stay for up to one year unless the Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, approves an extension in 90-day increments if operational control is not yet achieved.

104. Prohibition on Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section prohibits the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from preventing U.S. Customs and Border Protection from performing activities like search and rescue operations and preventing illegal entries, including those by terrorists and the smuggling of drugs, within 100 miles of the southern border on certain federal lands.

105. Interagency cooperative agreement Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the Secretary involved to make a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security. This agreement is to support a previous understanding about working together on security and counterterrorism efforts on U.S. federal lands near the country's borders.

201. Definitions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, two main definitions are provided: "applicable fire and sanitation regulations," which refers to specific rules from the Code of Federal Regulations about maintaining safety and cleanliness on certain federal lands, and "waste," which describes any unwanted materials left by humans without permission or not placed in a proper waste bin.

202. Policies and procedures to reduce trash along the southern border Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill section requires the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to create and implement policies within 90 days to reduce environmental harm caused by undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border or camping illegally on Federal lands. The policies should focus on reducing trash, protecting sensitive resources, and preserving wildlife habitats on these lands.

203. Transparency and accountability in trash accumulation on the southern border Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill section requires the Secretary to report annually to Congress about trash collected on certain lands, including federal lands and those used by individuals without legal immigration status. The report must detail the amount and cost of waste collection, suggest ways to reduce environmental harm, and include data from various agencies and organizations. Additionally, it should protect the privacy of those providing information and be submitted within a specific timeframe after the fiscal year ends.

204. Penalties and fines Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In Section 204, the bill outlines penalties for immigrants without legal status who engage in forbidden activities related to fire and sanitation on federal lands. It mandates that within a year, penalties and fines be increased to either double their current levels or to the maximum allowed without exceeding one year in prison or $250,000 in fines, and requires regular reporting on the fines collected.

Money References

  • (2) The maximum term of imprisonment and fines are raised to the greatest extent possible, such that— (A) the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; and (B) the fine does not exceed $250,000. (c) Enforcement.—The

211. Trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Response Initiatives Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section establishes initiatives led by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to manage environmental cleanup from illegal cannabis farming on Federal lands. It provides definitions, outlines goals and responsibilities, and discusses funding and collaboration with other entities to effectively address contamination and restore affected lands, supported by specific budget resources and legal frameworks.

Money References

  • (i) Authorization of appropriations.—To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $16,037,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2032.

212. Criminal penalties for illegal pesticide application Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section describes criminal penalties for private applicators who knowingly break the rules of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. If they violate the Act, they can be fined up to $1,000 or face up to 30 days in jail. If they do this while committing a federal crime, they could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

Money References

  • Section 14(b)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136l(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows: “(2) PRIVATE APPLICATOR.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Any private applicator or other person not included in paragraph (1) who knowingly violates any provision of this Act shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.

213. Protection of national forests; Rules and regulations Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to the Act of June 4, 1897, makes it a serious crime to illegally grow cannabis on public lands using pesticides that are not approved by federal law, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or up to 20 years in prison, or both.

Money References

  • shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both.”

214. Protection of Federal land; Rules and regulations Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Anyone who illegally grows cannabis on federal land and violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act could face a fine of up to $250,000 or up to 20 years in prison, or both, in addition to other penalties. "Federal land" refers to land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, except land held in trust for an Indian Tribe.

Money References

  • in connection with the illegal cultivation of cannabis on Federal land shall be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. (b) Clarification.—Penalties under subsection (a) shall be in addition to applicable penalties under any other Federal or State law.

221. Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative is a program established by the Secretary of the Interior to manage vegetation along the southern border to prevent wildfires and enhance border safety. It involves reducing hazardous fuels, dealing with invasive species, and creating fuel breaks, with authorized funding of $3,660,000 annually until the program ends 7 years after its start.

Money References

  • (e) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section $3,660,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2032.

222. Mitigating environmental degradation and wildland fires caused by illegal immigration Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section mandates the creation of policies to reduce wildland fires and environmental damage on federal lands caused by illegal immigration. It requires a report to Congress within a year on these issues and a follow-up update on previous reports regarding wildland fire management.

301. Definitions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section defines key terms used in the context of the bill. It specifies that "Federal land management agencies" include the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. It also explains that "housing" refers to camps for sheltering certain aliens, and "specified alien" refers to an alien who hasn't been formally admitted according to immigration law.

302. Prohibition on providing housing to specified aliens Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to provide housing to certain non-citizens on federal land. Additionally, it revokes a specific lease agreement concerning land in the Gateway National Recreation Area with the City of New York and prevents any similar future agreements.

303. Report Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture are required to submit an annual report to congressional committees. This report must detail the number of non-citizens housed on federal land and the countries they originate from.