House Subcommittee Hears Competing Views on HR 1820 ‘FLASH Act’ to Increase Border Access on Federal Lands

A House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing to consider HR 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security for Homeland Act (the FLASH Act), featured sharply divided testimony Tuesday over whether expanding Border Patrol access to federal border lands through roads, temporary barriers and relaxed restrictions would improve security and environmental protection or instead damage fragile landscapes and impose unfunded costs on understaffed agencies.

The sponsor, Representative Siskamani, told the subcommittee the bill "would strengthen border security by providing for the construction of navigable roads along the border on federal lands, allow states to place temporary barriers on federal lands, and directs federal managers to develop a strategy to address hazardous trash piles," and argued those measures are needed where an estimated 35% of the southern border is federally owned.

Why it matters: proponents said the FLASH Act would close access gaps used by smugglers and cartel networks, enable faster responses to environmental hazards and permit placement of tactical infrastructure in remote areas. Opponents warned that the measure would impose large, unspecified construction and maintenance costs on already understaffed land management agencies, risk harm to wilderness and park resources, and duplicate authorities that existing agreements already address.

Border security and access arguments

Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told the subcommittee that Border Patrol "need[s] three things…