HR-1268-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Maria Salazar (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Anti-Smuggling Act to extend the definition of "customs waters" — the zone where U.S. Customs and Border Protection can board, inspect, and detain vessels — from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from U.S. coastlines. It would align the statutory definition with Presidential Proclamation 7219 (1999), which already established a 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone under international law, but which has not yet been reflected in the underlying customs statutes.
Who benefits
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, who would gain earlier and broader legal authority to intercept vessels. Coastal communities affected by drug and human smuggling, who may see increased interdiction activity. Law enforcement agencies involved in counter-narcotics and anti-trafficking operations. Domestic maritime industries that compete with vessels engaged in smuggling or customs evasion. States with significant coastlines, particularly Florida, Texas, and Gulf Coast states, whose residents may benefit from expanded interdiction reach.
Who is hurt
Foreign-flagged vessels and their operators that transit within the 12–24 nautical mile band, who would now be subject to U.S. customs boarding and inspection. International shipping companies whose vessels pass near U.S. coasts and may face increased inspection delays or compliance costs. Civil liberties and maritime law organizations concerned about expanded enforcement jurisdiction over vessels not yet in U.S. territorial waters. Fishing vessels — domestic and foreign — operating in the contiguous zone that could face increased stops and inspections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that U.S. statutory law has lagged behind international law for over 25 years: Presidential Proclamation 7219 established the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone in 1999 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea framework, yet the underlying customs statutes still reference the outdated 12-mile limit. They contend that closing this gap would give law enforcement the legal tools needed to intercept drug and human smuggling vessels before they reach territorial waters, citing the Coast Guard's own data showing that the majority of maritime drug interdictions occur in the contiguous zone.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the customs enforcement zone doubles the area in which the U.S. government can board and search vessels without a warrant, raising Fourth Amendment concerns about unreasonable searches at sea. They contend that the existing 12-mile limit has provided a workable enforcement boundary, and that the 25-year gap between the Presidential Proclamation and this legislation suggests the expansion has not been operationally necessary — raising questions about whether the change would meaningfully reduce smuggling or primarily expand government authority over lawful maritime traffic.