Sponsored by

McSally strips BP freedom of information loophole from border bill

U.S. Rep. Martha McSally pulled a provision that would have allowed CBP to evade FOIA laws from a border bill moving through the House on Wednesday, after TucsonSentinel.com broke the news about the measure the previous day.

Removing the Freedom of Information Act loophole was an "important issue to clear up," the Republican congresswoman said. "Transparency is an important part of governance."

No one has yet offered an explanation for the exemption being included in the bill in the first place.

Related editorial: McSally bill may exempt Border Patrol from freedom of information laws

McSally said during a House hearing Tuesday that providing a loophole from public disclosure laws was "not the intent of this bill," and offered an amendment to clarify that "nothing in that section of this act will allow waiving of FOIA responsibilities."

"Because it was brought to our attention I wanted to make sure it was very clear that FOIA was not waived," she said.

The bill — H.R. 3548 — would authorize up to $10 billion for President Donald Trump's border wall, and was reviewed by the House Committee on Homeland Security. Among the members of that committee is McSally, who had previously signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

Freedom of information experts called the loophole "incredibly awful" and "a horrible thing." McSally's amendment removing it was approved unanimously by the committee during a markup session, the day after a TucsonSentinel.com editorial brought the provision to the public's attention. The Sentinel was the only news organization in the country to write about the FOIA loophole prior to the hearing.

Like what you're reading? Support high-quality local journalism and help underwrite independent news without the spin.

The bill would grant broad leeway to CBP — including the Border Patrol — to avoid complying with numerous laws when operating on "covered federal land," defined as areas within 100 miles of our southern or northern border. The agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has nearly 50,000 sworn officers and agents and is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the world.

In addition to exempting the sprawling agency from a host of environmental laws in order to ease construction of President Donald Trump's border wall, the bill would have allowed CBP to refuse to disclose information on most of its border enforcement activities. Environmental groups have strongly opposed those moves, but McSally and her GOP colleagues have said that border agents need to have the ability to patrol public lands near the border to halt drug and human smugglers.

Congressional sources said Tuesday that providing path for CBP to dodge FOIA disclosures was not the intent of the provision, but wouldn't detail any reasons for it being included in the bill. The wording of the law repeats past waivers granted by the secretary of Homeland Security, one said.

McSally's staff said Wednesday that they didn't know why the FOIA loophole had been included in the earlier drafts of the bill.

The legislation would have been "incredibly awful" if passed unchanged, said David Cuillier, head of the University of Arizona School of Journalism.

It would allow the federal government "to work in secret within 100 miles of the border, which is north of Catalina. Basically, the Border Patrol could do whatever it wants throughout Tucson and this legislation would prohibit anyone from the public to find out," said Cuillier, a nationally recognized expert on FOIA. "Is that the America we want to live in — where the government can act secretly doing whatever it wants with our tax dollars and our liberties at stake, and we don't ever find out?"

CBP would be able to ignore 36 federal laws if the measure is approved. Among the exemptions buried in the bill was Section 120(c)(2)(W) — a waiver of FOIA for the agency.

House Democrats on the committee offered a series of amendments to the bill, which were all voted down on party lines. Only McSally's amendment passed with unanimous bipartisan backing.

Among the Democrats who voted for the amendment was U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, who said "One questions how a provision exempting CBP from the FOIA Act got into this bill in the first place, however I would be remiss if I did not point out that her amendment picks winners and losers — to the detriment of the air we breath and the water we drink, tribal sovereignty and any endangered species."

"Why are we exempting the Freedom of Information Act and not the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Air Act? The double-standard is troubling in the least," she said.

Sponsorships available
Support TucsonSentinel.com & let thousands of daily readers know
your business cares about creating a HEALTHIER, MORE INFORMED Tucson

The American Society of News Editors weighed in on the possible FOIA exemption on Tuesday:

These sections affect the CBP's authority to act in order to prevent "all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorist, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband through the southern border or northern border," including, specifically, activities involving "the motorized vehicles, foot patrols, and horseback to patrol the border area, apprehend illegal entrants and rescue individuals," as well as "the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of tactical infrastructure and border technology ..."

The authority is so broad that CBP and its officers are given exemptions from the requirements of 36 different federal laws, including but not limited to, the National Environment Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, the Eagle Protection Act, the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, AND "Subchapter 5, and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 'Administrative Procedure Act')."

The federal FOIA is a subset of the Administrative Procedure Act; on paper, exempting CBP activities taken on covered federal land within 100 miles of the southern or northern border from the act could also exempt records of those activities from FOIA. It's unclear whether this reading is accurate, or intended, but unless someone asks, we might not know until it is too late. Unfortunately, there has been little to no stated opposition to this bill, so it could very well pass the House Committee on Wednesday, and later the entire House, unchecked.

The risk of leaving this stone unturned is clear: The public and press would be in the dark with regard to CBP activities near the border. We wouldn't have access to records of arrests, injuries, deaths and other major incidents at the border or the costs of securing the borders, including the cost and other details of building a border wall. The CBP would be able to run wild and without oversight for the most part.

"Under any circumstance it would be a horrible thing to withhold access to records of CBP activities within 100 miles of the border," said Dan Barr, attorney for the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, commenting on the bill on Tuesday. "Information about arrests, detentions and use of force by the CBP should be publicly available. However, the need for CBP transparency becomes more vital as we spend billions of dollars to further secure our border, whether it will be constructing a new border wall or not."

TucsonSentinel.com's original reporting and curation of border and immigration news is generously supported in part by a grant from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.

- 30 -
have your say   

1 comment on this story

1
7 comments
Oct 4, 2017, 5:00 pm
-0 +1

Yeah!  Go Tucson Sentinel!  And good on McSally for pulling that provision.  Her actions and statement were completely appropriate.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click image to enlarge

McSally, offering her amendment during a markup session on Wednesday.