By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

H.R. 1505: Another Federal land grab, with exemptions from environmental regulations, and a few more just for good measure. And just who has the authority over these lands? Why Homeland Security, of course.

The Hegelian Dialectic – Create the border problem, the people demand security, and the Feds supply the solution: Grab the land and hand it over to Homeland Security. There’s your security for you!

Bill Text: 

H.R.1505 — National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 1505 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 13, 2011

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. CARTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

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 THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY RELATED TO BORDER SECURITY.

(a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security 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 and maritime borders of the United States.

(b) Authorized Activities- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).

(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 sections of the international land and maritime borders of the United States within 100 miles of the international land and maritime borders of the United States for the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security described in subsection (b), including the construction of infrastructure, to achieve the operational control described in subsection (a).

(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.), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.).

Print Friendly
EmailFacebookTwitterPinterestRedditStumbleUponGoogle+DiggLinkedIn

Tags: , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Feds to Grab Land for Homeland Security”

  1. Or, here’s the same list in html format (sorry for the repetitive posts):
    http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/FedLandOwned.htm

  2. Federal Land Grab: state-by-state list

  3. Posse Comitatus says:

    There are more of us than there are of them. They can’t take us all if the s–t hit’s the fan and they try to force us into FEMA camps.

  4. BlueyBlogger says:

    I think it’s high time you people woke up over there and realised that the Indians own the land OK?
    No white person in America owns ANY land…..so, why not get the Indians on side against the banks and mortgage lenders, and do what is happening in Australia, ask them to produce the document which permits the sale of land in America, or receipt of Original purchase………..got ‘em by the balls!

  5. See Excel spreadsheet for a state by state of federal land ownership which must be Nullified and rolled back now!

    <a href="http://www.knology.net/~bilrum.....&quot;

  6. Kev_C says:

    If you consider this a threat then what you also need to really ask yourselves is what they intend to do with the land once they grab it? I suspect they will be very selective here and wait until stage ‘x’ of these series of laws are introduced. They have already beenat this game for a long time. So which number law we are seeing here is debatable as some of them were introduced before any of us were born.
    So what happens when Monsanto want to grow GMO’s without your consent on your land? They get Homeland Security to take it and claim it as a national security risk because you were trying to stop them growing ‘food’ (note the emphasis here). The fact it was GMO food does not even ebter into the argument. Yopu stood up to a coporation and ‘THEY OWN YOU!’ Got that people?
    Now if they also wanted to erect a huge factory farm they could do it under the same reasoning. If you object to anything they want to do your as good as dead. You won’t see the light of day ever again. Why? Because you are a threat to Homeland Security. ‘Food Security’ in this case. Note that damn emphasis again? It gets everywhere this ‘food’ thing when it isn’t food as we know it. After all the single greatest way to control the people is to control the food. And woe betide you if your growing your own organic veg. You are deinitely a terrorist.
    Have fun fighting the shadows people. It is going to get very dark soon and then you won’t even see them.

  7. amicus curiae says:

    and that would read better as:-)
    a whole pile of armed trained green or khaki?

  8. amicus curiae says:

    seems to me Aus already has all but that amazing 100miles laws in place now, we have enviro depts here withoverarching power to pester and invade private land/farms.
    if the pm declares emergency they can requisition everything, home land stock vehcles the lot.armed forces.and a now disarmed population
    still useable,Laws made after the first and second world wars.Martial laws.
    some people just see it as normal running of their country..
    imagine a whole pile pof armed traine green of khaki? helmeted guys, with attitude simply taking over your property, wake up to a camp on your front lawn.Moving companies will do very well.

  9. kathy Osborne says:

    The Federal Government is exhausting to those of us who pay attention. NAIS was pushed back because of a public outcry. The same could happen here, but like NAIS, the Fed wil repackage this law and “the camel” once again is on the move. Very hard to keep up and get the word out, but if we don’t, “Dave” then we resign ourselves to the worst case: living in a FEMA camp waiting to be exterminated.

  10. The Feds never have enough jurisdiction and feel no compunction to moderate their lusts for our assets, our servitude, their cravings for power and perks. The problem with socialism is sooner or later the bastards run out of our money! And of course, they will say it is our fault! We need to see some busy gallows on the Capitol lawn on national TV.

  11. Howie says:

    What the bill dosen’t say is that the DHS can and will do whatever they well please. Dose anyone really believe that the Fed really wants to build roads and fences on these lands?

    Could it not be that this bill would allow the Fed to manage this land in any way it see’s fit without any intrusion from the corresponding State to allow any legal or illegal activity depending on their agenda. Dose anyone remember the words of former Attorney General Eric Holder “never let a crisis go to waste.” Even if the Fed invites a crisis.
    It certainly appears anyhow that’s what they have done along the southern boarder. Even the BP oil spill fit perfectly into this administrations agenda. I wonder what is really up their sleeve now on this new Bill. Could it be that this Bill would alleviate another law suit like the one between Arizona and the Administration?

  12. Dave says:

    How do YOU spell “Agenda21″? While most folks have been asleep at the wheel, watching Lady Gaga, or worried about a fictitious “debt ceiling”, our elected (and appointed) representatives have been diligently working behind the scenes hashing out International Treaties. These “treaties” override and usurp the by-laws of America in virtue of our by-laws; the by-laws being the Constitution.
    Don’t take my word for it – it’s as simple as looking up United Nations, UNESCO, Council On Foreign Relations, L.O.S.T., UN Protocol and the Congressional Record (Thomas.gov) to name a few. This is all stated plainly on their own websites. Any half-hearted search will reveal much more.
    I will not any longer provide links to these sites simply because, after many attempts, very few actually pay attention and pursue the factual info.
    Uncomfy? Too much reality? I’m tired of providing John Q Public’s research – acts that all y’all [should] be doing for yourselves if you’re really interested in these life altering events.
    I hear tell that the UN soldiers are painting their helmets green in order to become the worldwide “green police”, coming to a town near you. I sez it is tactical move because all those sky-blue helmets made too much for a target-rich environment.
    Whether I’m paranoid is irrelevant – facts are facts, and easily (for now) discerned.
    Do with this what you will.
    Best o’ luck to ya.

  13. David says:

    We have seen this one coming for a while. Glad to see that the FED is looking out for U.S. and our children. FEMA camps are ready and waiting for those that oppose this action, and remember
    “abandon hope… all who enter there”.

  14. James says:

    Somewhere about 75 percent of the US population lives within 100 miles of the coasts. Throw in the Can-Mex order regions, including 100 miles around airports – yes, hose are considered international ports of entry as far as ICE is concerned, and you have about 90 percent of the population under this policy. This is the camels nose of marshal law slipping under the tent.

  15. Glad you caught that, Lisa :)

  16. Lisa says:

    “…within 100 miles…”????!!!!