Skip to comments.HR Bill 1505 allows for DHS takeover of seashores and coastal areas
Posted on 07/22/2011 11:25:44 AM PDT by Nachum
A new house bill wants to allow the Department of Homeland Security to have jurisdiction over all federal lands on national seashores and coastal areas.
HR Bill 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up monitoring equipment in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.
The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.
The bill is not without opposition. Congressman William Keating , who also sits on the House committee for Homeland Security, is concerned about the language in the bill as it appears to allow for outright destruction of parts of the United States as long as the DHS claims that there is some sort of security risk. There are also massive environmental and legislative problems to be taken into consideration as well.
the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations, including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.
Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
This is far too sweeping legislation. It essentially allows the DHS to do whatever it wants, including destroying habitats and coastlines, all in the name of security. There would be no oversight and no recourse for anyone or anything in the affected areas.
When is this overreaching of government going to be enough? Would you like to visit any of the places named above if they were swarming with armed military, checkpoints, and random stops, especially if you had no recourse to complain about them? What are the other purposes in this bill and just how far will it be stretched to fit the mission of the DHS as it changes day to day? We need to stop this bill while its still in committee. Once it becomes a law, these former parks and seashores will no longer be a place for a family to enjoy a weekend together. It will be a militarized border, questionable to no one.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Every time you turn around Obama’s bunch are taking over something else.
They want gulags and slaves. These people aren’t kidding, they won’t stop, they won’t “compromise” (as if that would be any good anyway) and they hate the Constitution. It’s nothing less than a coup, and the vast majority of the Repubs are tacitly on board and/or blackmailed/bribed or spineless disgusting cowards.
Need I say more?
The public beach known as Revere Beach in Revere MA was the first “National Seashore”. Are they going to blockade Kelly’s Roast Beef and Bianci’s Pizza?
You put DHS in charge of stuff they’ll bring their TSA goons to take x-rays of bear butts.
That puppy has to die.
Sounds very worrisome. It would presumably also include Padre Island, so about 1/2 of the Texas Gulf of Mexico coastline, which is surrounded by state waters, not federal waters.
It is less of a concern to me to exempt all those lands from the various US legislation, than the act of giving DHS unfettered jurisdiction over all those areas. Sounds like something the Soviet Union would do to its borders. DHA hardly inspires confidence in anything they do.
Nope. ‘Nuff said.
So let me get this straight, the sea shores and coastal areas need to be carefully guarded, but the overland border with Mexico, not so much.
Makes sense. Not.
Well, it's pretty clear that the only problem liberals really have with slavery in America was that slaves were privately owned.
Is this partial implementation of AGENDA 21?
Possible Agenda 21.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing $10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck!
Please Sign up Now!
You don't think that Janet N. and her goon squad can use these powers for our detriment? Sheesh.
Have you seen this?
DHS is a rabid enemy of the citizenry of the US. It’s that simple. Anything it touches becomes a weapon against us.
Pistole is on his scehdule.
All power to the state. As it collapses.
What does DHS have to do with tornado damage?
HR Bill 1505 allows for DHS takeover of seashores and coastal areas
A new house bill wants to allow the Department of Homeland Security to have jurisdiction over all federal lands on national seashores and coastal areas.
. . . . Ping to article related to our earlier discussion. Interesting comments here.
Read the list of laws waived by this measure:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Air Act,the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, yadda yadda yadda.
These bills are all used as an excuse to keep DHS from ENFORCING the border when public land is right at the border. These sponsors are REPUBLICANS and the first one listed is a Tea Party member from Utah. The DHS is NOT currently enforcing the border if the land is public land or national parkland, which is a lot of the land at the borders. In the meantime, drug smugglers and coyotes, bringing in illegals, are setting up shop in public lands along the border and theyre trashing the environment, but the progressives want to protect illegals more than they really want to protect the land. Illegals and smugglers are destroying these areas, making them unsafe for citizens to even go there. But worse, DHS wont build a border fence because the environmentalists use all of the above bills to STOP it. This bill, they hope, will force DHS to enforce the border. Heres a clue. If Daily Kos is opposed to HR1505, it must be good:
Here’s the press release associated with the bill:
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 13, 2011 Today, House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-NY), Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), and House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, to prohibit the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from using environmental regulations to hinder U.S. Border Patrol from securing our border on federal lands.
The legislation would ensure Border Patrol, not federal land managers, have operational control of our borders.
Unfortunately, federal land managers are using environmental regulations to prevent Border Patrol from accessing portions of the 20.7 million acres along the U.S. southern border and over 1,000 miles of the U.S.-Canada border.
Border Patrol agents are consistently unable to use motorized vehicles to patrol these areas or place electronic surveillance structures in strategic areas. As a result, our federal lands have become a highway open to criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potentially terrorists. This has led to escalated violence and also caused destruction of the environment.
On Friday, April 15th the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations Subcommittee will hold a joint oversight hearing titled The Border: Are Environmental Laws and Regulation Impeding Security and Harming the Environment? to examine this issue.
This legislation takes the necessary and responsible steps to address the unacceptable restrictions that prevent Border Security experts from doing their jobs. Allowing public land managers and restrictive environmental policies, not Border Security experts, to dictate how we secure our nations borders and keep our country safe is counterintuitive, and as a result, has jeopardized the safety and security of all Americans. The federal lands along our border are a haven of criminal activity and the same environmental policies that are supposed to be protecting the lands are actually allowing them to be destroyed. In fact, what benefit these regulations are actually providing remains a mystery. I have seen firsthand the damage that has been done to our federal lands from trash, foot traffic and man-made fires. Providing Border Patrol with the necessary access to deter and apprehend those who cross through our federal lands illegally would deliver the greatest benefit to both national security and the long-term health of our federal lands, Subcommittee Chairman Bishop.
We cannot allow the Obama Administrations Interior Department to use environmental regulations to hinder front-line Border Patrol agents critical mission of securing our border from illegal immigrants, including potential terrorists. The current, senseless practice fails to protect our federal lands, which see a constant flow of illegal immigrants carelessly crossing them. It also fails to protect our homeland, which remains vulnerable to terrorists who seek to take advantage of unpatrolled Interior-managed lands. Chairman King
The Government Accountability Office recently reported that less than half of the U.S.-Mexico border is under the operational control of the Border Patrol. At the same time, the Administration has prevented the Border Patrol from accessing federal lands in the name of environmental preservation. This misguided decision has a two-fold effect. Because the Border Patrol is prohibited from securing federal lands, drug smugglers and human traffickers trample the earth and terrorize communities. And because the border remains porous, illegal immigrants continue to come to the United States. This doesnt make sense, but our bill does. The American people not the plants need to be protected now. And by stopping the illegal activity along the border, we will preserve wilderness areas for future generations to enjoy. Chairman Smith
Chairman Bishops bill is focused on the goals of protecting our environment and keeping our country safe. This bill would end the federal agency turf war along the border. Its a common sense solution that I hope will have bipartisan support. I commend Rob Bishop for his determined pursuit of this vital national security and environmental issue. Chairman Hastings
For one federal agency to prevent a second federal agency from doing its congressionally-mandated job in order to appease a third federal agency is the definition of dysfunctional government, and why there is such a thing as congressional oversight. Our Border Patrol officers are the best in the world at their job and will protect our citizens if we will simply do our job as legislators to remove the federal red tape that is preventing them from securing federal lands. House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (TX-31)
National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act:
Prohibits the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security.
Authorizes Secretary of Homeland Security to have immediate access to any public lands managed by Federal Government for purposes of securing border.
Border Patrol agents would have access to maintain and construct roads, construct fences, use vehicles to patrol and set up surveillance equipment.
Exercises same environmental waiver authority found in the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that Congress extended to DHS Secretary Chertoff in 2008 to construct U.S.-Mexico border fence. Through that authority, prevents environmental regulations from impeding Homeland Securitys ability to have operational control of the U.S. border.
“It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences....”
With Janet From Another Planet Napolitano running the show, no fences will be built but the roads will. Roads will built so illegals won’t be inconvenienced as they invade our country.
LucyT, Checkout post #28 by “Greenperson”. The poster is right on the mark IMO. Goes along with my comments earlier to you on the Department of the interior.
How about we sell off some land, reduce the debt, and shut down a couple of agencies. Otherwise, more site-specificity would be very desireable.
Maybe it is the way this is worded that strikes me as having great genuine potential for the abuse of government power.
I have never been able to see the Department of Homeland Security other than in the Marxist light of securing the Homeland, not from outside threats, but from all the 'troublemakers' within.
By the time 'the fence' gets built, it will not be to keep them out, but to keep us in.
...in the meantime, pee on the ground on a BLM land, and you could be fined $10,000 if caught (as if nothing else ever did).
Drip by drip... that is how the Nazi party took control of Germany until the Germans were left with no say.
I’m sorry, but everyone hoorahing Bush (including me at some point) with “TERRORISM” and allowing the first stages of this madness... all in the name saving us from those muslims...
I’d rather take my chances with loony islamic fanatics than to hand over everything we have and are to this government. Bush didn’t abuse this system, but he set the wheels in motion for others to.
So frustrated, full of dispair, depressed and not sure what to do about any of it. And sorry to sound like a traitor, and no... I don’t ‘belong at DU’ or whatever. It’s just so hard to support my party that would not be screaming at the top of their lungs about garbage like this! Their silence sometimes seems complicit.
No, I think we are all feeling betrayed (and for me, a little foolish).
Read my post I just typed.
Too scary not to ping; ping.
Federal jurisdiction WITH OVERSIGHT.
This gives DHS total control and all they have to say is the word “security.” EVEN CONGRESS WON’T HAVE CONTROL OR OVERSIGHT SO ESSENTIALLY CONGRESS WOULD BE VOTING IT’S RIGHT AWAY AND THAT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY CANNOT VOTE OUR REPRESENTATION AWAY.
Sorry to shout, just frustrated no on quite gets how ridiculous this is!
Holy crap! I Pinged you after you pinged me... Sorry, to early.
This would include the entire state of Florida !
I am once again reminded, "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves"...
Thanks. Their silence means one of three things IMO:
1. It’s okay by them, or no big deal.
2. It’s not okay by them, but they’re neutered wabbits wetting their pants in fear.
3. It’s not okay by them and they plan to change it later when they can.
Unfortunately I am sure it is not #3. For most of them, they seem on board to a large degree, also there’s the aspect of riding the gravy train until the wheels fall off hoping they can jump off just before it goes over the cliff.
Great quote - thanks for the ping.
More 'laws' - less freedom...
Oh, I hear you, Joe. Totally.
The infringement came when they passed all these bills. ALL should be repealed, instead of simply waived for Border Patrol. All these bills are arguably unconstitutional. The left uses these types of nice-sounding bills (who is against clean water?) to impose restrictions on the freedom of the people and, especially, landowners.
I hate the DHS, too. Too much power. That’s always the problem. They invent these agencies without considering how they can be used in the wrong hands.
All Americans need to be suspicious of anything this government does. We need to go way back to America as envisioned by the Founders. Land of the FREE. Government OF, BY, and FOR the people instead of the reverse.
I simply wanted to enter additional facts into evidence. For everybody’s consideration.