PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 25, 2018
Border Tunnel Task Force Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish border tunnel task forces in jurisdictions in which such task forces can contribute to border security missions after evaluating: (1) whether the areas in which they would be established are significantly impacted by cross-border threats; and (2) the availability of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement resources to participate in such task forces.
The purpose of the task forces is to enhance and integrate border security efforts by addressing and reducing cross-border tunnel related threats and violence by facilitating collaboration among law enforcement agencies and enhancing information sharing among such agencies.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS shall:
ensure that the task forces do not unnecessarily duplicate the efforts of other existing interagency task forces or centers within such jurisdiction,
establish targets and performance measures for the task forces that include consideration of whether border barriers impact cross-border tunnel threats,
direct leadership of each task force to monitor progress on such targets and performance measures for each such task force, and
periodically report to the congressional homeland security committees regarding progress on such targets and performance measures.
People & committees
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8748)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8748)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6740.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8748-8750)
Mr. McCaul moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 750.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-962.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-962.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6740 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6740 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6740 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6740 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.