1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I am writing to you as your constituent to express my firm opposition to S.2967, the Border Lands Conservation Act. While the goals of managing borderlands and addressing environmental degradation are important, the methods proposed in this legislation are unacceptable and dangerously broad, even within the putative 100 mile limit from the southern and northern border. Of particular concern, however, and the primary reason for my opposition, are the provisions that seek to modify the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act is a cornerstone of American conservation, designed to protect our most pristine landscapes from the very things this bill seeks to introduce: roads, motorized equipment, and permanent tactical infrastructure. The language used to amend the Wilderness Act in this bill is nothing short of cavalier. By granting the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to override wilderness protections wherever they deem it necessary for the "purpose of securing the international land borders," this bill effectively strips the "wilderness" designation from these lands, no matter where they are in the country. The lack of a strict geographical limitation on these powers is extremely alarming. As written, this legislation creates a loophole that could allow the DHS to deploy motorized vehicles, aircraft, and permanent construction in any designated wilderness area across the entire United States, provided they claim a connection to border security. We already see many alarming examples of executive overreach where imprecise language is exploited to bypass judicial review and expand surveillance authority. We must not repeat these mistakes by allowing an amendment to the Wilderness Act that lacks a geographical tether to the "covered Federal land" definition. As it stands, this power is functionally national, limited only by the DHS Secretary's stated "purpose." To be clear, this is unacceptable even within the 100-mile border limitations, but the way in which this bill amends the Wilderness Act applies it to the whole country. Such treatment of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a disposable resource for agency convenience is an affront to the heritage of our public lands. It's as though one has to destroy the village in order to save it, as the US Army major is supposed to have said sixty years ago now. We cannot allow the security of our borders to be used as a pretext for the industrialization of our last remaining wild places. The precedent this would set—allowing a single cabinet secretary to unilaterally suspend the core protections of a landmark environmental law—is an abhorrent overreach of power. I urge you to stand up for the integrity of our wilderness and oppose S.2967 in its current form. Our wilderness areas must remain untrammeled, and our laws must be precise enough to ensure that "security" does not become a blank check for environmental destruction.