House passes bill to exempt Border Patrol from environmental laws along border

4 free views left!

House passes bill to exempt Border Patrol from environmental laws along border

By K.C. Mehaffey
World staff writer

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A package of bills including one that allows the U.S. Border Patrol to ignore 16 environmental laws on federal lands within 100 miles of Canada or Mexico passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The House voted 232-188 in favor of 14 bills, called the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, or H.R. 2578. Reps. Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers voted in favor of the bill. Rep. Reichert — also a Republican — voted against it. He was one of 19 Republicans voting against the bill. Sixteen Democrats voted in favor of it.

The bills will now go to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

The package includes the National Security and Federal Land Protection Act, which would allow the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security to build roads through roadless areas, construct fences and bases, and drive vehicles in wilderness areas to protect international borders.

The Border Patrol would only use those powers when needed to prevent illegal activities at the border, said Crystal Feldman, press secretary for the House Committee on Natural Resources.

She said several police organizations supported the law, including the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers and the National Border Patrol Council. “It’s not the Border Patrol who are hurting or ruining our environment. It’s the people who come across illegally, who have no regard for our laws,” she said.

But environmental groups say the bill, along with 13 others passed in the package of bills, is a direct attack on environmental laws that the Republican-controlled House hopes to compromise.

“Unfortunately, the bills contained in this legislation do not support conservation, nor do they support economic growth. Instead, it contains a showcase of some of the largest congressional attacks on our environment,” said Tom Uniack, conservation director of Washington Wild. The organization is one of 18 environmental groups across the state that came out in opposition to the bill on Monday.

Uniack said that the agencies involved — including the U.S. Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security — have said they don’t need these extreme measures to protect international borders.

The Los Angeles Times reported in April that the Border Patrol testified before Congress that it had forged agreements with the National Park Service and other land managers and were working cooperatively with those agencies to access the border. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress in March, saying the bill “is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”

“The argument that environmental regulations are creating an issue for homeland security is something the proponents of this bill are putting forward. It’s not the agencies,” Uniack said.

He said environmental groups will now work to prevent the bill from passing the Senate. He said the current makeup of the Senate makes that unlikely, but there’s strong concern that the bill may get through a back door, as an unnoticed rider attached to another bill.

K.C. Mehaffey: 997-2512

mehaffey@wenatcheeworld.com

» Recommend this story.

» 14 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

JimboBear 11 months ago

Hmmmmmmm! I think the idea of allowing them better access is a fine idea, but the thought of 16 bills all passing as one package scares the bejaybers outta me! That's opening up far too many doors with one stroke of the pen. Creating a package like this seems to be either lacking legislative effort or attempting to camouflage something in my mind. What happened to the "transparent" administration Obama promised in 2008?

H 11 months ago

The transparent administration was promised by Obama but this is the House; House = Republicans = Do anything and everything Obama doesn't want.

JimboBear 11 months ago

OK, but it's still his administration, is it not?

carol 11 months ago

Maybe "transparent" to them means it will be clear to us that they can do whatever they want....ie the two Executive Orders in the last week...transparent all right. Clearly he covered for his friend.

milo 11 months ago

The point is, this bill has nothing to do with his administration, only the House where he has no authority.

kyook 11 months ago

"The bills will now go to the U.S. Senate for consideration."

You're right, milo. After that, on to the POTUS for a veto, or not.

What would you predict?

Norm 11 months ago

"OK, but it's still his administration, is it not?"

No, it isn't. Congress is an entirely separate branch of government.

JimboBear 11 months ago

Duuuhhhh! Got me with that one Norm! Now why did I even say that?

kassilou1 11 months ago

Maybe because you blame everything and anything on President Obama???

kyook 11 months ago

"blame everything and anything on President Obama???"

Exaggerate much, kassilou1?

Perhaps Jimbo just had a momentary misunderstanding of the question. You don't cut much slack, do you?

JimboBear 11 months ago

Actually what I had was a brain . . . . Uhhhh maybe I can't say that word, but what it was is that my brain was passing gas.

As to blaming Obama, where in this thread did you see me blaming Obama or anyone else for anything Ms. Simmons? While I fully understand the difference between the Executive and Legislative branches, I also seem to recall that the POTUS has the power of veto, and so in that respect, I was partially correct in my statement. Now please . . . . point out for me where I was blaming Obama for something?

kassilou1 11 months ago

I read these posts enough to definitely get that impression. Sorry if that offends you.

JimboBear 11 months ago

It doesn't offend me in the least. It only makes me wonder where you saw that in this or any thread. Quite honestly, I think you are full of petunias. I have said nothing of the sort. You probably "get the impression" that the sky is falling if there are low clouds too.