Overview
Title
To authorize certain States to take certain actions on certain Federal land to secure an international border of the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
Some U.S. states near Canada or Mexico want to put special barriers on nearby federal land to help keep borders safe. They have to tell the government 45 days before setting them up and can keep them there for a year or longer if the government agrees.
Summary AI
H.R. 7479 proposes that certain U.S. states, specifically those bordering Canada or Mexico, can place temporary, movable structures on federal lands near these borders to enhance border security. The bill defines the federal land management agencies involved and details the procedure for placement, requiring states to notify the respective federal agency 45 days in advance but not obtain a special use authorization. These structures can initially be placed for up to a year, with possible 90-day extensions if needed to achieve operational control, as determined in consultation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, designated H.R. 7479 in the 118th Congress's second session, seeks to empower certain U.S. states, known as "Border States," to enhance security along the international borders with Canada and Mexico. Specifically, it allows these states to place movable, temporary structures on federal lands near these borders without needing special use authorization from federal agencies, provided they notify the relevant authorities at least 45 days in advance. The intended purpose is to help secure these borders. The structures are permitted to remain on federal land for up to a year, with potential extensions granted in 90-day increments.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the text of this bill, highlighting potential challenges and areas of concern:
Use of Federal Land: By allowing states to place structures on federal land without prior authorization, the bill may lead to misuse or lack of oversight, raising both legal and environmental concerns.
Lack of Specificity: The bill does not clarify what constitutes a "movable, temporary structure" or provide limitations on size and scope. This vagueness could lead to varying interpretations and inconsistent applications across different states.
Notification Period: The 45-day notification period for placement activities might not provide sufficient time to assess the environmental or jurisdictional impacts, potentially resulting in adverse ecological consequences.
Reliance on External Definitions: The definition of "operational control" refers to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, introducing possible ambiguities if the referenced act is reinterpreted or amended.
Environmental Considerations: There is no mention of environmental impact assessments, an omission that could result in ecological harm not being adequately considered.
Extension Procedure: The bill lacks detailed guidance on how extensions for structure placement should be approved, leaving significant discretionary power to federal authorities, possibly causing uneven application.
Consultation on Extensions: Though it mandates consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for extensions, the bill lacks specific criteria for determining operational control, which could lead to subjective decision-making.
Potential Impact on the Public
If enacted, this bill could increase efforts to secure the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders by allowing states more direct involvement in security measures. However, the ability to place structures on federal lands without comprehensive federal oversight could have ecological impacts, potentially affecting conservation efforts and public access to these lands.
For the local population, increased temporary border structures might enhance perceived security but could also disrupt ecosystems and wildlife habitats. In regions reliant on tourism and natural resources, this disruption might have economic repercussions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts
- State Governments: Border states could benefit from enhanced autonomy to address border security concerns swiftly.
- Border Security Agencies: Organizations focused on border control may appreciate the increased tools at their disposal for securing the nation's borders.
Negative Impacts
- Environmental Groups: These stakeholders might view the bill as a potential threat to federal lands' environmental integrity, as it lacks explicit mention of environmental assessments.
- Federal Land Management Agencies: These agencies could experience challenges managing lands if state actions potentially conflict with federal environmental and land-use policies.
- Indigenous Communities: Given that Bureau of Indian Affairs lands are involved, indigenous groups might have concerns over sovereignty and environmental impacts affecting their lands and resources.
Overall, while the bill aims to bolster border security, its lack of specified procedures and considerations for environmental impacts and federal land oversight could lead to significant legal and ecological ramifications.
Issues
The allowance for a Border State to place movable, temporary structures on Federal land without a special use authorization could lead to potential misuse or lack of oversight on Federal lands. This is significant for legal and environmental oversight reasons. (Section 1(b))
The section lacks specificity on the type or scale of 'movable, temporary structures,' which could lead to varied interpretations and applications across different Border States, increasing the risk of inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges. (Section 1(b))
The requirement for notification to the Secretary concerned is only 45 days prior to placement. This may not be sufficient time for a thorough review of potential environmental or jurisdictional impacts on Federal lands, possibly leading to environmental damage. (Section 1(b))
The reliance on the definition of 'operational control' from the Secure Fence Act of 2006 introduces potential ambiguity or conflicts if the referenced legislation is updated or interpreted differently over time. This could create legal uncertainties. (Section 1(a)(5))
The role of environmental impact assessments or considerations is not mentioned at all, which may result in ecological consequences not being properly addressed, raising ethical and environmental concerns. (No specific subsection)
There is no detailed guidance on the process or criteria for granting extensions in 90-day increments for the placement duration of structures. This leaves significant discretion to the Secretary concerned and could lead to uneven application of the law. (Section 1(c)(2))
The consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not specify criteria or benchmarks for 'operational control,' potentially leading to subjective decisions on extensions, which can be politically controversial. (Section 1(c)(2)(B))
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. Placement of movable, temporary structures on certain Federal land to secure an international border of the United States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that states next to the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico borders do not need special permission to place temporary structures on nearby federal land to help secure the border, as long as they notify the relevant authority 45 days in advance. These structures can stay for up to a year and may be extended if approved, especially if border security conditions have not been met.