CONTAINER Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 21, 2025
Bottom line
The CONTAINER Act aims to empower border states to unilaterally deploy temporary border security measures on federal lands, potentially streamlining state-led efforts but raising questions about federal authority and environmental impact.
What it actually does
This bill, the CONTAINER Act, authorizes states adjacent to the U.S. northern or southern border to place temporary, movable structures on federal land within their borders for up to one year to secure the international border. It waives the requirement for a special use authorization from federal land management agencies, requiring only a 45-day notice. Extensions are possible in 90-day increments, which must be approved if U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines operational control has not been achieved.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides necessary tools for Border States to address urgent border security challenges by removing bureaucratic hurdles that delay effective action. They contend that states are often on the front lines of border crises and should not be hampered by federal permitting processes when seeking to protect their communities and the national border, especially when federal agencies are perceived as not acting quickly enough to achieve operational control.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill undermines federal authority over federal lands and could lead to a patchwork of uncoordinated state-level border security efforts that interfere with federal operations and environmental protections. They may also raise concerns about potential damage to federal lands, including national parks and wildlife refuges, and the lack of federal oversight for such placements.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to quickly understand its core provisions.
Section 2(b)
Waiver of Special Use Authorization for Border States
This provision allows states bordering Canada or Mexico ("Border States") to place temporary, movable structures on federal lands within their borders to secure the international border without needing a special use authorization from federal land management agencies. The state only needs to provide 45 days' notice to the relevant federal agency before placing the structures. This significantly reduces the federal permitting burden for states undertaking such actions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision empowers states to act decisively in the face of perceived federal inaction or slow bureaucratic processes, allowing for rapid deployment of necessary border security infrastructure. They believe it respects state sovereignty and addresses immediate security concerns.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision bypasses established environmental and land management review processes, potentially leading to adverse impacts on federal lands, including sensitive ecosystems and cultural sites, without adequate federal oversight. They may also argue it creates a fragmented approach to border security.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances state autonomy and rapid response to border security concerns against federal land management authority, environmental protection, and coordinated national border strategy.
Section 2(c)
Temporary Placement Duration and Extension
This section specifies that the movable, temporary structures can remain on federal land for an initial period of up to one year. This period can be extended in 90-day increments if approved by the "Secretary concerned" (Interior or Agriculture). Crucially, the Secretary must approve an extension if the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines that "operational control" of the border has not been achieved. "Operational control" is defined by reference to the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Defines "operational control" by referencing section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367).
Section 2(a)(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions and to ensure consistency with existing law. However, it can obscure the full scope of the term for a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing an existing, established definition provides clarity and consistency with previous border security legislation, ensuring that the standard for "operational control" is well-understood within federal agencies.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external definition, especially one from a law passed nearly two decades ago, might not fully capture current border realities or could be interpreted in ways that are overly broad or restrictive, potentially leading to structures remaining in place longer than necessary.
Estimated impact: The definition of "operational control" is critical because it dictates when extensions for temporary structures must be approved, potentially leading to indefinite placement of structures on federal lands.