Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2213) to amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 374, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, and makes in order one amendment.

H.R. 2213 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill, introduced by Ms. McSally from Arizona, that will help ensure we have sufficient Border Patrol agents to secure our border. At this point in

time, where we are facing tremendous challenges overseas, where we are facing tremendous national security challenges, our Customs and Border Protection is understaffed and unable to meet the congressionally mandated staffing levels for Customs officers and Border Patrol agents.

With these ever-increasing threats to our national security, it is vital that we ensure CBP can quickly hire capable and trustworthy individuals to secure our border. Currently, prospective officers and Border Patrol agents are required to undergo a background check that includes passing a polygraph test. This process has been very long and has drastically delayed the CBP's ability to hire officers and Border Patrol agents.

H.R. 2213 simply provides a limited, voluntary exemption to the pre- employment polygraph requirement for State and local law enforcement officers that are in good standing and who have already passed a State and local law enforcement polygraph test, for Federal law enforcement officers who are in good standing, and members of the armed services or veterans who have received or who are eligible to receive an honorable discharge and have held a security clearance and undergone a thorough background check in the past 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, this exemption is very narrow and only applies to men and women that we already trust to protect and defend us at home or abroad: men and women who have already been through relevant security background checks. The CBP would not be required to use this waiver authority; and, if there is anything in any applicant's history that warrants further investigation, the CBP Commissioner is fully authorized and encouraged to use a polygraph test to resolve any outstanding questions.

Mr. Speaker, for years, the CBP has struggled to recruit and vet potential employees. There is no more urgent need that we have right now than securing our border and making sure we have the resources there to be able to do that job.

H.R. 2213 is a commonsense approach that will help address this issue and ensure the CBP has the men and women it needs to keep our borders and our Nation secure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2213, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I welcome the opportunity to share the floor today with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend from the Rules Committee. I just would point out that, as a Congress, as a body, we have actually passed more pieces of legislation, gotten them on the President's desk, and gotten them signed at this point in Congress than at any time since President Truman was in office.

So it may be that my colleague is not in agreement with many of the things that we have done, but, Mr. Speaker, we have actually been working very hard to begin the process of recovery from 8 years of rules and regulations that have really strangled the people of this Nation.

We have passed, as the gentleman noted, healthcare reform out of this body. We repealed ObamaCare, and every single day we get more and more indication about the failures of that healthcare plan, with insurance companies pulling out of markets and leaving citizens all across this Nation unable to get access to affordable care. The Republican plan will change that.

We are also in the process and will, tomorrow, be voting to repeal the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has had a devastating effect on our community banks all across this country and on our communities, and moving away from the really misguided approach of the last 8 years that centralized power here in Washington, D.C.

One thing that didn't happen in the last 8 years though was the security of the border. And far too often we saw laws that weren't enforced. We saw people turning the other way for sanctuary cities, for example, and the failure on the part of the last administration to do what was necessary to make sure that we could know who is coming into this country and that we had the resources necessary to secure our border.

So I am very proud to be here today, to be able to debate this rule, to be able to debate the underlying legislation, which is sadly needed, so that we can get those resources we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his participation in this debate today.

I think it is important for the record to be clear and to be accurate, Mr. Speaker. This House of Representatives, in the time that we have been in session, has been the most productive House during the first 100 days of a Presidency in 30 years.

I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not want to agree to that. They may not want to acknowledge that because Speaker Pelosi held the record previously when she was Speaker, but I am very proud of that, that we have done a tremendous amount for the American people in the time that we have been in session.

We have overturned 14 Obama regulations in this Congress alone, which has had a tremendous impact on our constituents. We have already taken steps that will save them $3.7 billion in regulatory costs, 4.2 million hours in paperwork.

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the communities across my home State of Wyoming, this relief could not have come soon enough. We are in a position today where we have faced strangling regulation out of Washington, D.C., for the last 8 years, regulation that was truly intended in too many instances to drive businesses out of business, to drive our community banks out of business, and to create a situation where Washington, D.C., was creating one-size-fits-all policies. But those days are over. This is a new day, and we take very seriously our obligations to put country ahead of party.

With respect to Russia, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is well aware, there are multiple investigations underway in the Congress. We on the Republican side--I think this is a bipartisan issue--take very seriously the sanctity of our electoral process and will make sure that we get to the bottom of it.

We have got to ensure that we recognize and understand the extent to which Russian hacking was going on--frankly, not just in the United States, but around the world--and make sure that we do everything necessary to stand up against both Russian hacking, to stand up against the kind of Russian attacks that we are seeing on electoral processes in Europe, and, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we secure ourselves.

At the end of the day, that is what this debate is about here this afternoon. We have got to make sure that we all recognize in this body that there is nothing more important than the security of our Nation.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are at a crisis moment. We are at a crisis because, for the last 8 years, our military has been strangled. For the last 8 years, our borders weren't secure. We have had threats growing around the world.

We have seen the rise of ISIS. We have seen the rise of al-Qaida--the expansion of al-Qaida around the world into many more countries than it ever existed before.

We have seen the Iranians make steady progress towards obtaining a nuclear weapon under what is the most misguided treaty agreement ever entered into by any American President: the Iranian nuclear agreement.

We have seen Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. We have seen Russian aggression in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen North Korea attempting, on a near weekly basis it sometimes seems, to make sure that it has perfected and acquired ballistic missile technology, while they also work to make sure that they are able to put a nuclear warhead on those ballistic missiles.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in a very dangerous world. We are living in a world in which America's ability to defend and protect itself is under threat in a way that it has not been certainly since the end of the Cold War, and maybe even since World War II.

Defending and protecting this Nation, Mr. Speaker, will require, both, that we provide the resources our military needs to defend us so that we can, Mr. Speaker, get out from underneath the policies of the last 8 years, but it also will require that we secure our border.

This bill today on the floor will provide the relief necessary for the CBP to do what is necessary to keep us safe. We have no greater responsibility than providing for our security.

I would remind the gentleman from Florida that this bill passed out of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, on a bipartisan basis, with sponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is crucially important that we take this step to provide the relief--and not mandatory relief, but the relief--that the CBP can use if it needs.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the range of accomplishments that we have had that I am very proud of in this Congress and the accomplishments still to come, I think that we have to also recognize that nothing is more important than the security of the Nation. This bill goes to the heart of that, to making sure that the CBP can do its job. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 2213.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 374, I call up the bill (H.R. 2213) to amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 2213.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2213 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in support of the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the failed immigration policies of the previous administration have kept our borders open, weakened our national security, and put millions of American lives at risk from an increasing number of grave and growing threats. These threats come from drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers, and international terrorists who seek to do our country harm.

Fortunately, we now have a partner in the White House who understands that we cannot rely on the oceans or other natural boundaries alone to separate us from those looking to infiltrate our homeland.

This morning, I was once again pleased to welcome Secretary Kelly before the Committee on Homeland Security and listen to him articulate the importance of border security to the Trump administration.

We know we need a 21st century border to meet 21st century threats. Sadly, every few days, we hear a story on the news that reminds us of the dangerous consequences of Washington's inability to achieve that goal.

As a former Federal prosecutor and the chief of counterterrorism and national security in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas, I have seen how people take advantage of our Nation's open borders. Over time, those who are determined to come here illegally become agile. They adapt to the measures that we take to stop them. It is obvious that we need a new approach.

When it comes to strengthening our borders, additional funds and new technology will be necessary. However, our strongest assets are the courageous men and women who serve as Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers. These patriots put their lives on the line every single day to protect us while also safeguarding our economic relationships that boost American jobs and grow American businesses.

However, we are almost 1,800 Border Patrol agents and 1,000 CBP officers short of having the force that we need to keep our borders secure. Our forces are stretched thin and our efforts to recruit additional officers and agents have slowed due to strict requirements for new applicants. Currently, it takes an average of 113 applicants to hire just one new officer or agent. This is a major problem that must be addressed.

This legislation offers a solution by providing the CBP Commissioner with the flexibility to hire State and local law enforcement officers who have already served for 3 years without a break in service, are not under investigation or have been found guilty of misconduct, and have previously passed a law enforcement polygraph exam.

It also provides the CBP Commissioner with the authority to hire members and veterans of the armed services who have held security clearances and who have already completed a robust background check.

To put it simply, this bill will make it easier for some of America's finest law enforcement officers and soldiers to help protect our borders.

As drugs continue to creep into our neighborhoods and wreak havoc on our communities and terrorists advance their plans to attack our country and disrupt our way of life, we must make sure we have an adequate force to protect our borders.

This needs to be a priority. This should not be a partisan issue. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed unanimously out of my committee. Members from both parties should come together, as they did at the committee level, as Mr. Vela did, and support this effort.

American families deserve to know that we are doing everything we can to keep our homeland safe. This legislation gives us a chance to do just that.

I would like to thank my colleague and chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Congresswoman McSally from Arizona, for all of her hard work on this bill. As a Representative from a district along our Southern border, she fully understands more than any Member the seriousness of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the sponsor of the bill and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate, it is important to note this bill is a bipartisan effort, passing unanimously out of my committee. It is supported by Ranking Member Thompson, Congressman Vela, and we thank you for that, and others. Again, it passed out unanimously.

I was pleased to see also a Dear Colleague letter sent by my Democratic counterparts on the Homeland Security Committee urging the passage of this bill. This only further underscores the bipartisan nature of this effort.

It is also supported, Mr. Speaker, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Border Trade Alliance, the CBP officers' union, and the Fraternal Order of Police, among others.

The issue is very clear. Not passing this bill will continue to keep American families at risk from dangers of human traffickers, drug smugglers, and international terrorists. Right now, we simply don't have an adequate number of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers to safeguard our Nation's border. We need to fix that. That is what this legislation does. It will allow us to bolster our forces with talented law enforcement officials and military personnel who have been previously vetted and have already demonstrated their commitment and patriotism to their fellow Americans.

As I have stated before, while new infrastructure and technology will be important in protecting this Nation, the brave men and women who confront threats to our homeland are our greatest assets.

Once again, I thank Congresswoman McSally, Ranking Members Vela and

Thompson, and all those who supported this bill. It will help strengthen our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Lujan Grisham amendment.

Let me say, first, that the Secretary of Homeland Security testified before my committee this morning, a decorated four-star general serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the head of SOUTHCOM. This man knows the border. Secretary Kelly supports this legislation.

I find it a bit offensive that decorated veterans who have already received clearances somehow would present a threat to the security of the United States, so I reject that argument.

This amendment strikes me as an unnecessary and harmful delay tactic that would prevent CBP from implementing the much-needed flexibility provided for in the underlying bill.

If the delays called for in this amendment were put in place, CBP would have to sit and wait until certain unnecessary obstacles were overcome, some of which are completely out of their control. All the while, they would continue to hemorrhage officers and agents, threatening the Nation's border security and the flow of commerce in and out of the country. This could put our national security at risk and would be, further, detrimental to the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

CBP has missed hiring targets for Border Patrol agents for 4 years and CBP officers for almost 18 months. We need additional officers and agents now, simply to meet the congressionally mandated CBP staffing levels that have been put in place for a year. We cannot wait for more reports and evaluations.

Sadly, this amendment looks to me like an attempt by opponents of the bill to prevent the important provisions of this bill from going into effect in a timely manner, thus preventing the hiring of already trusted and vetted individuals who have served their Nation and the military with honor and distinction.

It is also important to underscore two points here: one, that all applicants will continue to be fully vetted, including a rigorous tier 5 background investigation, which is equivalent to the investigation performed for all servicemembers who hold a top secret clearance; and second, the authority granted under this bill is discretionary. If the CBP Commissioner wishes to require a polygraph examination for any applicant for any reason, he can and should still do so.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait any longer. As the Speaker knows, who is briefed on the threats, as do I, in a classified setting, the threats are real. This Nation is at risk, and we cannot afford to wait.

So, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Let me just close, again, by saying I oppose the amendment. The men and women wearing the uniform on the front lines of our ports and borders need relief now, and any delay tactics should be rejected. Therefore, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has two key missions: securing the border and facilitating cross-border commerce that powers the Nation's economic growth. In order to accomplish those missions, they need enough agents and officers to be able to make arrests, interdict drug loads, screen cargo from countries of concern, or move legitimate commerce and passengers through an air, land, and sea port of entry.

U.S. Border Patrol agents and CBP officers are, at the end of the day, the most important border security and trade resource we have. Unfortunately, they are in short supply these days, which has created a national security and economic vulnerability that this Congress must address.

CBP is critically understaffed and remains well below its congressionally mandated staffing levels by more than 1,000 CBP officers and 1,800 border patrol agents. The manpower shortage is getting worse. We are losing ground every single month, and there is no end in sight as we continue to lose experienced agents and officers through attrition without the ability to efficiently hire new ones. For example, CBP has invested $200 million in a port of entry infrastructure in Arizona, alone, over the last 8 years, but there is simply not enough staff to open up every lane that is available.

I want to emphasize this point: officer and agent shortages did not happen overnight. The U.S. Border Patrol has not met its congressionally mandated hiring numbers since fiscal year 2014, and CBP has been losing officers to man our ports since early in fiscal year 2016.

At the current hiring rate, approximately 113 applicants go through the process in order to hire a single officer or agent. That means CBP needs to have hundreds of thousands of people apply just to meet their current needs. We need more manpower to properly secure our border, screen passengers at our Nation's airports who arrive from overseas, and facilitate cross-border commerce that powers our economy.

There are several underlying issues that are responsible for these current staffing woes. For starters, it takes more than 292 days for these 12 distinct steps, on average, to hire a new officer or agent. And even with the newer expedited system that is supposed to condense these steps into just several days, it still takes an average of 160 days to complete the process. Very few people can wait somewhere between 6 months to a year for a job. We are losing very experienced and already vetted applicants.

Several years ago, the committee began working directly with the previous administration to find solutions to these staffing problems and the hiring process. The bill under consideration today represents the fruits of that bipartisan work and, as a result, was passed out of the Homeland Security Committee unanimously last month.

My bill allows the Commissioner of CBP to waive the polygraph requirement for current State and local law enforcement officers who have already passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement officers who have already passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with at least 3 consecutive years in the military who have held a security clearance and passed a background check.

These exemptions are purely discretionary, not mandatory. If there is something in an applicant's history or background that causes CBP concern, they can still use the polygraph exam to resolve those questions.

These small changes will provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents from a pool of qualified applicants who already maintain the public's trust and put their lives on the line for our security and our safety on a daily basis.

I want to make my position very clear. Everyone who applies to be a CBP officer or Border Patrol agent should be thoroughly vetted to ensure there are no integrity issues in their background and they are not at risk for corruption. That is how the current system operates, and nothing in this bill would change that. That is why Congress required polygraph examinations and stringent background checks for agents in the first place.

I fully support the use of polygraph examinations to weed out people who are unfit to wear the badge or carry a gun, but we can and should make these very narrow, sensible, and straightforward allowances to permit CBP to hire those who have already been vetted and proven by their service in uniform that they are suitable to become agents and officers.

The National Treasury Employees Union, who represent the officers who are stationed at the ports of entry; the Non Commissioned Officers Association, who represent many of our veterans; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Border Trade Alliance; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and the Department of Homeland Security all support this bill. Indeed, this is a rare bill that has united both management and labor.

I include these letters of support in the Record.

The National Treasury

Employees Union,

June 5, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) Officers at the Department of Homeland

Security who are stationed at 328 land, sea and air ports of

entry represented by the National Treasury Employees Union

(NTEU), I ask you to vote YES on H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border

Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017. This legislation

would expand the applicant pool for vacant CBP Officer

positions by allowing the CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph

requirements for certain categories of job applicants.

NTEU continues to have significant concerns about the slow

pace of hiring at CBP. CBP has struggled to fill 2,000

Officer positions that Congress authorized in 2014. A major

impediment to fulfilling CBP's hiring goal is that CBP is the

only federal agency with a congressional mandate that all

front-line officer applicants receive a polygraph test. Two

out of three applicants fail its polygraph--about 65

percent--more than double the average rate of eight law

enforcement agencies according to data provided to the

Associated Press. The eight law enforcement agencies that

supplied this information showed an average failure rate of

28 percent. As an example, the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration failed 36 percent of applicants in the past

two years.

NTEU does not seek to reduce the standards used by CBP in

their hiring process, but believes that there is a problem

with how the polygraph is currently administered. We have

asked CBP to review its current polygraph policy to

understand why CBP is failing applicants at a much higher

rate than individuals applying to work at other federal law

enforcement agencies. H.R. 2213 expands the authority to

waive polygraph examinations for certain veterans and law

enforcement officers, while also safeguarding CBP's right to

administer the polygraph for these exempted applicants if a

need arises.

Improving the current polygraph program should help in

expediting the CBP Officer hiring process so that the

existing 1,400 vacancies can be filled allowing CBP to move

forward with funding and hiring the 2,107 additional Officers

required by CBP's Workforce Staffing Model. NTEU also

recommends that CBP allow immediate polygraph re-testing

opportunities to those with a No Opinion or Inconclusive

result, including those with a No Opinion Counter Measures

finding.

NTEU asks you to vote YES on H.R. 2213.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Reardon,

National President.

Let me close with just this example.

I served in the Air Force for 26 years. In that time, I held a Top Secret/SCI clearance with access to compartmentalized programs as well, some of the most sensitive information that our government possesses. I was entrusted to fly a $12 million aircraft, command a squadron, run counterterrorism operations and combat search and rescue operations, retiring as a colonel, yet I have never taken a polygraph exam like the one required if I wanted to be a Border Patrol line agent after I retired, but I was subjected to periodic, very detailed background checks, background investigations, now called a tier 5 investigation, which is one that every single one of these agents and officers will also have to go through. It is a very invasive and thorough investigation. They talk to your neighbors, your coworkers, look in your financial records, your employers, you name it, to make sure that you are qualified.

So this example is a mismatch of public trust and it doesn't make any sense, and we need to give the CBP Commissioner discretion on a narrow case-by-case basis to fully vet applicants in the way that makes the most sense to fill these positions while preventing corruption.

I would like to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, and especially my ranking member, Mr. Vela, for his support and work with us on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

H.R. 2213 would broaden the criteria for waiving the polygraph requirements for certain applicants at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Under the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, the Commissioner of the CBP would be permitted to waive polygraph requirements for certain State and law enforcement personnel who have passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement agents who have passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with three consecutive years in the military who have held a security clearance and passed a background check.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of ensuring that our Federal law enforcement agencies are operating at full capacity, but there are other big-ticket items that we are ignoring in this institution. So I ask: Where is the Republican agenda?

With control of both Chambers of Congress and the White House, my colleagues across the aisle have made it through nearly half of their first year in power without a single major legislative achievement. It appears that President Donald John Trump is more interested in slashing old policies than proposing new ones.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans have yet to put forward the promised $1 trillion infrastructure package. Voters are still waiting for the massive tax cuts promised to them during the campaign.

The American people have yet to see a single jobs bill, let alone the supersecret plan to defeat ISIS. And looming over this long to-do list is the investigation into Russia's blatant attempts to interfere in our election, an issue that many of my Republican colleagues seem more than happy to ignore.

Instead, President Donald John Trump and my friends across the aisle have spent their time rolling back protections for workers, consumers, teachers, students, and the environment.

Instead of tackling a bipartisan spending deal, addressing budget cuts under sequestration, and avoiding debt default, the Republican- controlled Congress insists on dismantling the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with a plan that will raise deductibles, lessen coverage, and leave 23 million more people uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, there are still plenty of people without jobs in this country. We have plenty of families worried that they will be tossed off of their health insurance plan, and we have plenty of folks who are pleading with Congress to pass compassionate immigration reform.

Yet President Donald John Trump is tweeting about his travel ban and attacking London Mayor Sadiq Khan hours after a terrorist attack hit London which, sadly, killed seven people and injured dozens more.

Mr. Speaker, after being the antigovernment party--and I find it hypocritical that people in the administration are declaring that we are obstructionists. They gave, during that period of the previous President, obstruction absolutely new meaning. After being the antigovernment party for so many years, it appears that the congressional Republicans have forgotten how to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to be deeply concerned by revelations that Russia hacked last year's elections. In fact, just this week we learned that Russian military intelligence engaged in a monthlong cyber attack against our voting infrastructure, specifically targeting a voting software supplier and 122 local election officials.

This most recent revelation comes on the back of earlier determinations by the intelligence community that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed fake news in order to sway the election in Donald Trump's favor. This has been made even more troublesome by the fact that Donald John Trump recently admitted that he fired FBI Director Comey over the Bureau's investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Mr. Speaker, the integrity of our electoral system is at stake. It is time the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference into our 2016 election.

This marks the eighth time we have tried to bring this bill to the House floor. On the previous seven occasions, the Republican majority, regrettably, refused to allow the House to even debate this important legislation. But today, they will have yet another opportunity to redeem themselves. I hope they will finally put country ahead of party.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long, and we don't have much time to cross items off that list. There are only 30 working days before our 5-week August recess. That is not much time, but those of us on this side of the aisle stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner with our Republican colleagues in order to make sensible reforms to our Tax Code, our infrastructure and healthcare system, in short, to work hard for the American people, because that is what we were sent here to do.

It is far past time for my friends across the aisle to come to the table ready to work on behalf of the American people in a bipartisan manner. We on this side of the aisle continue to stand ready to do so, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit, of course, of hearing my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren, and I appreciate my colleagues on the other side because, agreed, we all want there to be the right sort of national security protections at the border, but we want to make sure that we are maximizing those opportunities and recognize that there has been an issue of being able to address the shortage of officers. But to address a workforce shortage by minimizing the very requirements that not only preserve our national security and protect the men and women at our border, I would agree, is not the way that we should be proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I rise in opposition to the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act. As a Member from a border State that heavily trades with Mexico, I certainly understand the value of having sufficient customs officials manning our ports of entry and agents protecting our border; but eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation's safety, given this agency's historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption.

The DHS inspector general has warned that weakening CBP polygraph requirements would make our southern border more vulnerable and that we should, instead, identify ways to make hiring more efficient without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I live in a community that the FBI has now identified as one of the most dangerous cities in the country, Albuquerque, New Mexico, primarily because of the drug cartel. The drug trade in our city and in our State is significant, so we understand having sufficient officers.

While I strongly oppose this bill, I am committed to working with my colleagues and CBP to identify solutions that won't jeopardize national security.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, a national security issue. No other Federal law enforcement agency in the country--not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service--makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam.

I understand that the CBP has a staffing shortage, but watering down vetting standards is dangerous and could lead to more corruption at the largest law enforcement agency in the country. In fact, 2,170 CBP personnel were arrested for sexual assault, excessive force, conspiring with international drug trafficking organizations, and other offenses between 2005 and 2012.

In response, Congress enacted legislation to require every applicant to undergo a polygraph exam--no exceptions. DHS' own Integrity Advisory Panel and the GAO have both recommended that the current polygraph testing be expanded, not reduced, given the higher rates of corruption at CBP than any other Federal law enforcement agency.

This bill takes us backward, and some current and former DHS officials have expressed concerns that the bill could expose the agency to corrupt individuals who could undermine the integrity of the workforce.

DHS Inspector General John Roth warned that the proposed legislation ``could put CBP at significant risk and that while it may sound reasonable to say you could waive requirements from former military personnel because they have passed a polygraph, Border Patrol agents work in a different environment that is not as controlled as the military.''

Former CBP head of Internal Affairs has stated that ``very few members of the military take polygraphs or have comprehensive background checks, and the quality of State or local law enforcement polygraphs varies widely.''

My amendment would delay the implementation of the bill until, one, CBP completes its ongoing pilot program of an alternative polygraph test that may help speed up hiring while maintaining vetting standards; and, two, the DHS inspector general determines that the bill would not endanger our national security, undermine workforce integrity, or, in fact, increase corruption.

I recognize that CBP is managing hiring and staffing issues. Passing this bill without knowing its potential risks or consequences is not only shortsighted, but I think it is irresponsible. We shouldn't blindly experiment with our Nation's security given that drugs, weapons, and human trafficking, as well as terrorism, are all threats we are facing at the border.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for my amendment to help safeguard national security and protect the integrity of the CBP and its officers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.