Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017

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 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.

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

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

I have forcefully rejected the President's mass deportation efforts from the beginning, and I will continue to do so.

Many of us have appropriately criticized our President for wrongfully attributing the criminal actions of a few undocumented individuals to the entire undocumented population. Equally here, it would be hypocritical to attribute the criminal actions of a few rogue agents to the hardworking men and women that protect our Nation every day and who uphold the ethical standards that we should expect.

The Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017 will assist CBP in fulfilling its mission to facilitate legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, the volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than tripled in the last 25 years. Currently, 1.1 million people and $5.9 billion in goods enter and exit the U.S. at 328 U.S. ports of entry every day.

In fiscal year 2016, CBP officers and agents seized and/or disrupted more than 3.3 million pounds of narcotics across the country, including approximately 46,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 48,000 pounds of heroin, and 440 pounds of fentanyl, keeping these harmful drugs off of our streets.

CBP has struggled with recruiting the officers and agents to fill its frontline ranks at our Nation's air, land, and seaports. Currently, there are 1,400 unfilled positions within the CBP workforce at our Nation's ports of entry. Delays and short staffing at our ports of entry costs the United States economy up to $5.8 billion each year.

Under this bill, the CBP Commissioner may, on a case-by-case basis, exempt certain veterans and State and local law enforcement officers who meet specific standards, such as holding a security clearance and previously passing a polygraph, from having to take the CBP polygraph as a part of the hiring process. All other vetting requirements in the 12-step hiring process for these applicants will still apply.

This bill simply grants CBP limited authority to waive a single step in its robust vetting process for qualifying applicants who hold security clearances or who have successfully completed polygraphs.

I would like to thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Chairwoman McSally for their work on this bill. I also thank Chairman McCaul and Chairwoman McSally by accepting changes offered by the minority to improve this bill.

Ranking Member Thompson offered an amendment in committee to require CBP to report to Congress how many of these waivers are requested, granted, and denied; the reasons for these denials; as well as whether these applicants are ultimately hired or not.

Additionally, it requires CBP to inform Congress on the number of applicants who are granted a waiver but undergo a polygraph examination anyway based on information discovered during their background investigation. Congress must remain vigilant about how the waiver authority is used, and this amendment will ensure we have the information to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in short, the men and women on the front lines of CBP need our help. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017, aims to bring some relief to the tremendous staffing shortages at our ports of entry by providing CBP with limited authority to waive its polygraph requirement on a case-by-case basis for certain veterans and State and local law enforcement officers in its hiring process.

H.R. 2213 is endorsed by the NTEU, the union that represents frontline CBP officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not at all question the intentions of the proponents of this bill. I understand that the entire rationale is to expedite hiring because of the vast number of vacancies. I do, however, question the wisdom of this approach.

I think it is worth noting that, currently, two-thirds of the applicants for CBP fail the polygraph test; and that is important not as a barrier, but because that polygraph test reveals misconduct that makes them ineligible.

Now, the current Department of Homeland Security inspector general, John Roth, has expressed strong reservations about polygraph changes, the waivers, and, specifically, about these bills. He indicates that we need to identify other ways to make hiring more efficient ``without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.'' And, in fact, the DHS OIG is currently auditing the CBP polygraph program, as is the GAO.

If you take a look at the bill, it allows for exemptions of the polygraph to certain categories of people, one of which is law enforcement officers who have undergone a polygraph examination as a condition of employment within the past 10 years. Well, you know, there was actually a Freedom of Information request on who flunked the polygraph tests in the CBP, and what has come out is that people who fall into this exemption admitted conduct that would make them ineligible, including child pornography, smuggling of drugs, theft.

It is fine to say that this would only be used when you knew that there wasn't a problem. The problem with that argument is sometimes you don't find out what the problem is until you subject the applicant to a polygraph or they know that they are about to be subjected to a polygraph, in which case, they own up.

So the Border Patrol is to be honored; they do a great job for us. But we know that the Sinaloa drug cartel is trying to recruit applicants. The last thing we need is for them to succeed, for our sake as well as for our brave men and women in the Border Patrol.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good solution to the dilemma that faces us. We do have a hiring deficit in the Border Patrol, but we cannot give up on the need to fully vet these people.

The independent inspector said that the polygraphs had stopped dozens of applicants who have admitted to participation in human trafficking, defrauding the government, and have links with cartels intent to infiltrate CBP.

There has been, actually, a release from the Freedom of Information Act of people who would be eligible for the exemption who admitted, under the polygraph, to sexual assault, to child pornography, to taking classified information from Afghanistan, to taking classified information from Iraq, a sheriff's employee who engaged in theft, and a police officer who was a smuggler. The Border Patrol cannot afford this.

I think the gentlewoman's amendment actually preserves what we want, and I would highly recommend that we approve it.