S157-119

In Committee

CONTAINER Act

119th Congress Introduced Jan 21, 2025

Analysis under review: This bill has generated analysis that may be too generic or incomplete. Clause-level evidence remains available below.

Summary

What This Bill Does

The bill requires eliminates Federal permitting requirements for Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land for border security purposes. It relies on exemptions and reporting requirements. The main policy areas are Border Security, Environment, and Housing.

Who Benefits and How

Border State governments (TX, NM, AZ, CA, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) could face lower compliance burdens, Federal land management agencies (BIA, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FWS, NPS) could face lower compliance burdens, and Border security infrastructure contractors and suppliers could gain revenue opportunities.

Who Bears the Burden and How

Department of Interior could face increased risk, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) could face increased risk, and Wildlife protection organizations could face increased risk.

Key Provisions

  • Requires eliminates Federal permitting requirements for Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land for border security purposes.

Evidence Chain:

This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.

At a Glance

What This Bill Does

The bill requires eliminates Federal permitting requirements for Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land for border security purposes.

Key Policy Areas

Border Security, Environment, Housing

Primary Purpose

The bill requires eliminates Federal permitting requirements for Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land for border security purposes.

Policy Domains

Border Security Environment Housing

Section 2 - Placement of movable, temporary structures on Federal land

Identified Gains
  • Border State governments (TX, NM, AZ, CA, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME)
  • Federal land management agencies (BIA, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FWS, NPS)
  • Border security infrastructure contractors and suppliers
Model: codex-gpt-5:bulk-repair | Version: bill_summary_v2 | Source: is
Border security infrastructure contractors and suppliers:
Border State governments (TX, NM, AZ, CA, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME):
Federal land management agencies (BIA, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FWS, NPS):
Identified Costs
  • Department of Interior
  • Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)
  • Wildlife protection organizations
  • Environmental conservation organizations
  • Indigenous tribes with BIA-managed lands
Model: codex-gpt-5:bulk-repair | Version: bill_summary_v2 | Source: is
Department of Interior:
Wildlife protection organizations:
Environmental conservation organizations:
Indigenous tribes with BIA-managed lands:
Department of Agriculture (Forest Service):

Legislative Progress

In Committee
Introduced Committee Passed
Jan 21, 2025

Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. …

Jan 21, 2025

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and …

Jan 21, 2025

Introduced in Senate

Stakeholder Effects

cui bono?

How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.

Government
4 mentions across 1 clause
-4 negative

Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Department of the Interior, Federal land management agencies (BIA, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FWS, NPS)

State & Local Government
2 mentions across 1 clause
+2 positive

Border State governments (TX, NM, AZ, CA, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME)

Environment
2 mentions across 1 clause
-2 negative

Environmental conservation organizations, Wildlife protection organizations

Construction
1 mention across 1 clause
+1 positive

Border security infrastructure contractors and suppliers

1/2
sections analyzed
Full impact breakdown

Bill Structure & Actor Mappings

Who is "The Secretary" in each section?

Domains
Border Security Environment Housing
Actor Mappings
"commissioner"
→ Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
"border_states"
→ States adjacent to northern border (Canada) or southern border (Mexico)
"secretary_concerned"
→ Secretary of the Interior (for BIA, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, NPS land) OR Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System land)
"federal_land_management_agencies"
→ ['Bureau of Indian Affairs', 'Bureau of Land Management', 'Bureau of Reclamation', 'Forest Service', 'United States Fish and Wildlife Service', 'National Park Service']

Note: The 'Secretary concerned' has dual meaning depending on land jurisdiction: Secretary of Interior for most Federal lands vs Secretary of Agriculture for National Forest System lands

Key Definitions

Terms defined in this bill

7 terms
"Border State" §2(a)(1)

A State that is adjacent to the northern border or southern border

"Federal land" §2(a)(2)

Land under the jurisdiction and management of a Federal land management agency that is adjacent to the northern border or southern border

"Federal land management agency" §2(a)(3)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service

"northern border" §2(a)(4)

The international border between the United States and Canada

"operational control" §2(a)(5)

As defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)

"Secretary concerned" §2(a)(6)

Secretary of the Interior (for land under Interior jurisdiction through BIA, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, or NPS directors) or Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System land through Forest Service Chief)

"southern border" §2(a)(7)

The international border between the United States and Mexico

We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.

Learn more about our methodology