The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 1268·119th Congress·Introduced Feb 12, 2025

Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act

IntroducedForeign Trade and International FinanceMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
Committees
Ways and Means Committee (primary)
Last action
Feb 12, 2025

Bottom line

The bill expands the statutory reach of U.S. customs enforcement to 24 nautical miles, aligning domestic law with existing international assertions and enhancing national security and anti-smuggling capabilities.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Anti-Smuggling Act to redefine the 'customs waters' of the United States. It extends the statutory limit for customs enforcement from approximately 12 nautical miles (four leagues) to 24 nautical miles from the U.S. baselines, explicitly including the contiguous zone as defined by Presidential Proclamation 7219. This change formalizes and expands the geographic area where U.S. Customs and Border Protection can enforce customs laws.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step to enhance national security and strengthen anti-smuggling efforts by providing clear statutory authority for customs enforcement in the contiguous zone. They contend it aligns domestic law with the U.S.'s existing assertion of jurisdiction under international law, as established by Presidential Proclamation 7219, thereby providing legal clarity and consistency for enforcement agencies and maritime operators alike.

Opponents contend

No specific organized opposition is typically raised against this bill, as it largely codifies existing U.S. assertions of jurisdiction in its contiguous zone. However, potential concerns, if any, might relate to the increased operational costs for enforcement agencies to patrol a larger area, or perceived overreach by foreign entities, though the contiguous zone is a recognized concept in international maritime law.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core purpose quickly.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)

Extension of Customs Waters to 24 Nautical Miles

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision redefines 'customs waters' in both the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Anti-Smuggling Act. Previously, customs waters were generally understood to extend four leagues (approximately 12 nautical miles) from the coast. The bill explicitly expands this definition to include the territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles, as per Presidential Proclamation 5928) and the contiguous zone (up to 24 nautical miles, as per Presidential Proclamation 7219). This means U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other maritime law enforcement agencies will have statutory authority to enforce customs laws further offshore.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupU.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other maritime law enforcement agenciesImpactExpanded jurisdiction and operational area for enforcing customs laws.MechanismStatutory redefinition of 'customs waters'.ScaleGeographic expansion of enforcement authority from 12 to 24 nautical miles.
GroupMaritime vessels, commercial shipping, and individuals operating near U.S. coastsImpactSubject to U.S. customs laws and enforcement further offshore.MechanismExpanded enforcement zone.ScaleIncreased regulatory reach, requiring awareness of U.S. customs jurisdiction up to 24 nautical miles.

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that this extension provides essential legal clarity and consistency, aligning domestic law with the U.S.'s long-standing assertion of a contiguous zone under international law. They contend it will significantly enhance the ability of law enforcement to interdict smuggling operations, including drugs, weapons, and other illicit goods, before they reach U.S. shores, thereby bolstering national security.

Critics contend

No specific organized opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it largely codifies existing U.S. assertions of jurisdiction in its contiguous zone. Any potential concerns would likely focus on the practicalities of increased enforcement costs or the potential for minor diplomatic friction with other nations, though the contiguous zone is a widely recognized concept in international law.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the desire for enhanced national security and border protection through expanded enforcement capabilities against the potential for increased operational costs for maritime agencies and the need to ensure consistent application of international maritime law regarding freedom of navigation in the contiguous zone.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
Ask Ledger AI about this