19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–448 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FEDERAL LANDS PROTECTION 

ACT 

APRIL 17, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1505] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1505) to prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Security and Federal Lands Protection 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPEDING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION RELATED TO BORDER SECURITY. 

(a) PROHIBITION ON SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE.—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 109–367)) over the international land borders of the United 

States. 

(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.— 

(1) AUTHORIZATION.—U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall have immediate access to land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

the Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of conducting the following activities 

on such land that assist in securing the international land borders of the United 

States: 

(A) Construction and maintenance of roads. 

(B) Construction and maintenance of fences. 

(C) Use vehicles to patrol. 

(D) Installation, maintenance, and operation of surveillance equipment 

and sensors. 

(E) Use of aircraft. 

(F) Deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward 

operating bases. 

(c) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO WAIVER AUTHORITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any 

termination date relating to the waiver referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security on April 1, 2008, under section 

102(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 104–208) of the laws described in paragraph (2) with respect to certain sections of the international border between 

the United States and Mexico and between the United States and Canada shall 

be considered to apply to all land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 

Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international 

land borders of the United States for the activities of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection described in subsection (b). 

(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED.—The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 

seq.), Public Law 86–523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ‘‘Antiquities Act of 1906’’) (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Act 

of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), 

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.), subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code 

(commonly known as the ‘‘Administrative Procedure Act’’), the Otay Mountain 

Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–145, 113 Stat. 1711), sections 102(29) 

and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.), 

the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91–383 

(16 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.), sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and 

Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–625, 92 Stat. 3467), the Arizona Desert 

Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101–628), section 10 

of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 

668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), Public Law 95–341 (42 U.S.C. 1996), Public Law 103–141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act (30 

U.S.C. 181, et seq.), the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the 

General Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 note). 

(d) PROTECTION OF LEGAL USES.—This section shall not be construed to provide— 

(1) authority to restrict legal uses, such as grazing, hunting, or mining, on 

land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Agriculture; or 

(2) any additional authority to restrict legal access to such land. 

SEC. 3. SUNSET. 

This Act shall have no force or effect after the end of the 5-year period beginning 

on the date of enactment of this Act. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1505, as ordered reported, is to prohibit the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on 

public lands that impede border security on such lands. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 1505 resolves the turf war between the Border Patrol and 

federal land managers within the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Agriculture that has put our national security 

at risk. Currently, land management bureaus have the authority to 

thwart border security activities under authorities created by environmental laws such as the Wilderness Act and the Endangered 

Species Act. Unfortunately, these laws are being used to block the 

Border Patrol from taking the actions needed to protect these federal lands and control the border, allowing drug smugglers and 

human traffickers to enter the country undeterred. 

Congress mandated that the Border Patrol achieve ‘‘operational 

control’’ of the international borders of the United States. Operational control is defined in statute as the ‘‘prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, 

other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and 

other contraband.’’ While Congress has authorized large increases 

in manpower and equipment for the Border Patrol, it has left regulatory obstacles in its path that make operational control an unattainable demand. H.R. 1505 will solve this problem by exempting 

essential border security operations from significant restrictions 

created by certain environmental laws. 

Nearly unfettered access onto our federal borderlands by illegal 

border crossers has devastated significant natural and cultural 

sites. Tons of litter and other biological pollutants are left behind 

as illegal traffic tramples federal property. Cartels and smugglers 

are not known for their adherence to environmental law, but the 

Border Patrol is bound by the restrictions mandated by federal 

land managers. 

The Border Patrol needs access to patrol the remote landscapes 

found on much of the border. However, current law requires them 

to ask permission of land agency bureaucrats to do their job. The 

Border Patrol must obtain permission to enter federal lands. The 

Border Patrol must obtain permission to place monitoring equipment necessary to secure the border. The Border Patrol must obtain permission to move equipment on federal land. The Border Patrol must obtain permission to place temporary camps that would 

keep Border Patrol agents in the field doing their job. The Border 

Patrol must obtain permission to maintain roads on federal lands. 

Land managers can take months to grant these authorizations to 

the Border Patrol. At times, permission is not given, leaving heavily trafficked areas unprotected. There is no incentive for the local 

federal land managers to cooperate with the Border Patrol. 

This legislation would facilitate security access to federal lands 

by extending the waiver authority previously granted to the Department of Homeland Security and exercised to build portions of 

the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. This authority 

would only encompass federal land within the current statutory jurisdiction of the Border Patrol, defined as 100 miles from the interVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:08 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR448P1.XXX HR448P1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

national border. The authority also expires in five years, which will 

allow Congress an opportunity to determine if it needs extending 

or modification. Management of federal lands will not change. The 

Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture will retain those responsibilities and continue to oversee recreational and 

economic uses of these federal lands. The Border Patrol is prohibited from restricting legal uses of federal lands, such as hunting, 

grazing, mining, camping, or using all-terrain vehicles. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1505 was introduced on April 13, 2011, by Congressman 

Rob Bishop (R–UT). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The bill was additionally referred to the Committee on Agriculture and to the Committee on Homeland Security. On July 8, 2011, the Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on the 

bill. On October 5, 2011, the Full Natural Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Rob Bishop (R–UT) offered an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute. Congressman Colleen Hanabusa (D–HI) offered an 

amendment designated .037 to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute; that amendment was withdrawn. Congressman Rau ́l 

Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment designated .001 to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute; that amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. Congressman Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) offered 

an amendment designated .002 to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute; the amendment was not adopted by a record vote of 

13 to 25, as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here HR448P1.001
6 

No further amendments were offered, and the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bishop was adopted by voice 

vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to 

the House of Representatives by a record vote of 26 to 17, as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here HR448P1.002
8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1505—National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act 

H.R. 1505 would waive the requirement that the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) comply with certain federal laws when 

conducting border security activities on federal lands within 100 

miles of U.S. land borders. The bill also would eliminate the requirement that DHS consult with the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before carrying out such activities. Based on information from the affected 

agencies, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 

not have a significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 

1505 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

Under current law, DHS has the authority to waive various environmental and land management laws when conducting certain activities related to border security. The bill would provide a broad 

waiver of those laws for all such activities conducted within 100 

miles of U.S. land borders and would eliminate the requirement 

that DHS consult with DOI and USDA before carrying out those 

activities. The provisions of the legislation would expire five years 

after enactment. 

H.R. 1505 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. Based on information from the Department of the 

Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CBO estimates 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

that implementing the legislation would not have a significant impact on the federal budget. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to prohibit the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands that 

impede border security on such lands. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(10) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The purpose of H.R. 1505 is not to make the border more secure. 

Rather, the purpose of the bill is to use border security as cover 

to effectively repeal more than a century of environmental protection for Americans living and working along our borders with Canada and Mexico. 

In April, the Natural Resources Committee held a joint oversight 

hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during which the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department and the Border Patrol all testified, under oath, that federal land management 

laws do not impair border security. 

According to the GAO report (GAO–11–573T), 22 of 26 Border 

Patrol Agents-in-Charge interviewed reported that federal land 

management laws had no impact on the overall security status of 

their jurisdiction. The four remaining Agents-in-Charge reported 

that they had not requested increased resources to mitigate the 

conflicts they saw or that their request for such resources had been 

denied by the Border Patrol, not the Interior Department. 

In summary, the number of Border Patrol Agents-in-Charge who 

found that federal land management laws were impeding border 

security, but were prevented from fixing the problem by the Interior Department, was exactly zero. The Administration concurred 

with this finding at multiple hearings. The record is clear—the 

problem this bill claims to solve does not exist. 

The true purpose of this legislation is also clear. The proponents 

oppose the more than 30 bedrock environmental protections effectively repealed by this legislation—including the Clean Water Act, 

Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act—everywhere, not just 

within 100 miles of the border. H.R. 1505 employs a manufactured 

conflict with border security to weaken their application. 

The laws waived by this Act are the work-product of dozens of 

Administrations and Congresses, developed after thousands of 

hours of negotiation and compromise and, in most cases, were enacted with strong, bi-partisan support. H.R. 1505 hands the Border 

Patrol a unilateral veto over all of these laws. 

This legislation grants the Chief of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection unprecedented power; application of dozens of laws, impacting millions of acres and millions of people’s lives would be 

within the Chief’s unilateral and unreviewable control. Management of dozens of National Parks, wildlife refuges, and forests 

would be ceded to DHS. Decisions regarding whether our water is 

safe to drink, our air is safe to breath and whether Superfund sites 

are to be cleaned up would all rest with one individual. 

Enactment of H.R. 1505 would not only allow DHS to trample 

the ground near the border, it would also allow the agency to trample the rights of states and Native People. This legislation would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

empower individual Border Patrol agents to enter Tribal land, 

without notice, and conduct any and all activities—including excavation and construction—without regard to the presence of Tribal 

sacred sites, burial sites, or environmental impacts. Subcommittee 

Ranking Member Grijalva offered an amendment to exempt Tribal 

lands from the sweeping application of H.R. 1505 but that attempt 

to protect Tribal sovereignty was rejected by the Majority. 

The real problem of border enforcement is one of manpower, 

budgets, economic incentives and difficult terrain. This bill addresses none of these concerns. We will not secure our borders by allowing our water to be polluted. We will not stop illegal drug trafficking by allowing our air to get dirtier and we will not stop terrorists from entering this country by allowing toxic waste dumps 

along the border. 

In the end, if H.R. 1505 reduces the number of immigrants coming to this country, it will only be because the water, air and economies of our border communities are so degraded that no one wants 

to come here anymore. 

This legislation is sweeping and reactionary; the bill is not what 

it appears and should be rejected. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. RUSH HOLT. JOHN GARAMENDI. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. NIKI TSONGAS. COLLEEN W. HANABUSA. BEN R. LUJA ́ N. DALE E. KILDEE. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here HR448P1.003
13 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here HR448P1.004
14 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here HR448P1.005
15 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here HR448P1.006