U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–133 

Calendar No. 179 

ANTI-BORDER CORRUPTION 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 595 

TO PROVIDE U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WITH 

ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO EXPEDITE THE HIRING PROCESS 

FOR APPLICANTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT POSITIONS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 24, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

JOSE J. BAUTISTA, Senior Professional Staff Member 

SERVANDO H. GONZALES, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

STACIA M. CARDILLE, Minority Chief Counsel 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

SUE RAMANATHAN, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

Calendar No. 179 

115TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 1st Session 115–133 

ANTI-BORDER CORRUPTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2017 

JULY 24, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 595] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 595) to provide U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection with additional flexibility to expedite the hiring 

process for certain applicants for law enforcement positions, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 5 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 6 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 7 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 595, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017, is to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) with additional flexibility to consider applications from certain groups of U.S. veterans and local and state law enforcement 

officers who are considered to be low-risk for positions available 

within one of the three subcomponents: the Office of Field Operations (OFO), U.S. Border Patrol (BP), and Air and Marine Operations (AMO). For several years, CBP has struggled to meet its hirVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:46 Jul 27, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR133.XXX SR133
2 

1 U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2016 

(2016), available at https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Mar/FY-2016- 

CBP-PAR-508C.pdf. 2 Id. 

3 Information DHS provided to Committee Staff (Apr. 6, 2017). 

4Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements: Hearing on S. 595 Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. 

(2017) (statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union). 5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

ing goals. Staffing shortages not only hinder CBP’s core mission of 

securing the U.S. borders and promoting legitimate trade and travel, but they also contribute to low workforce morale. 

This bill waives the polygraph requirement for applicants who already meet stringent qualifications, have passed a polygraph, and 

who have a law enforcement background and the operational skills 

necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of CBP subcomponents. This 

bipartisan effort ensures that all applicants meet certain threshold 

requirements to be granted the polygraph waiver. Ultimately, a 

well-staffed CBP promotes national security and improves the experience of legitimate travelers at air, sea, and land ports of entry. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

CBP is one of the most important law enforcement organizations 

in the United States Government. CBP employs more than 60,000 

law enforcement and support personnel to carry out a dynamic and 

evolving mission.1 Every day, the women and men of CBP screen 

over one million international travelers, interdict thousands of 

counterfeit goods, arrest thousands of immigration law violators, 

seize thousands of pounds of illegal drugs, prevent agricultural 

pests from damaging U.S. crops, disrupt terrorist and criminal 

travel, and provide emergency services at and between ports of 

entry.2

Yet CBP is struggling to fill thousands of law enforcement vacancies. According to the component’s workforce management projections, as of March 4, 2017, CBP is approximately 2,900 employees 

short of the congressionally-approved personnel numbers for the 

OFO, BP, and AMO.3 At a March 22, 2017 hearing before the Committee, OFO and BP union representatives testified that current 

staffing shortages are impacting the component’s workforce morale 

and ability to fulfill key responsibilities.4 Anthony M. Reardon, National Treasury Employees Union President, asserted that OFO officers are required to frequently work overtime and are routinely 

sent on involuntary Temporary Duty (TDY).5 This practice has lowered the morale of officers as they are away from their families for 

long periods of time.6 Additionally, Mr. Reardon told Committee 

Members that for some ports of entry, such as the one at San 

Ysidro, California, CBP is not able to handle the cargo and passenger volume, resulting in long wait-times, supply chain disruptions, and overworked OFO officers who often only have approximately two minutes to make admissibility determinations.7

Several internal and external factors have played a role in CBP’s 

staffing challenges. According to the former CBP Commissioner, Gil 

Kerlikowske, the administration of the polygraph requirement 

mandated by Congress in 2010 to mitigate corruption and abuse alVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:46 Jul 27, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR133.XXX SR133
3 

8 Associated Press, Two out of three Border Patrol job applicants fail polygraph test, making 

hiring difficult, Los Angeles Times (Jan. 13, 2017) available at http://www.latimes.com/local/ 

lanow/la-me-border-patrol-lies-20170113-story.html. 9Memorandum from the Kevin McAleenan, Acting Comm’r of U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 

to the Deputy Sec’y of Homeland Sec. on Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan, available at http:// 

i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/07/cbp-memo.pdf 10Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements: 

Hearing on S. 595 Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. 

(2017) (statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union). 11The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, Before the S. 

Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. (2017). 12Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements: 

Hearing on S. 595 Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. 

(2017) (statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union). 13Pub. L. No. 114–328, § 1049. Note that the authority granted in 2016 is narrower than the 

authority related to veterans proposed in this bill. 14 Information provided by DHS to HSGAC staff on June 1, 2017. 15 Id. 

legations has impacted CBP’s ability to hire new officers for all 

three of its components.8 Echoing Kerlikowske’s concern, CBP’s 

Acting Commissioner, Kevin McAleenan, described the polygraph 

examination as ‘‘both a significant deterrent and point of failure for 

CBP law enforcement applicants.’’ 9

Congress has been conducting oversight on this matter given 

that approximately 65 percent of all applicants fail the polygraph 

examination.10 In contrast, other Federal law enforcement agencies 

report failures at around 30 percent.11 There are a number of possible reasons for this discrepancy, though no one reason is dispositive. Attrition and mobility limitations also have contributed to low 

recruitment and retention numbers.12 CBP will not be able to address retention issues without addressing and resolving the problems responsible for slowing the hiring pipeline. 

To enhance CBP’s recruitment efforts, Congress passed language 

in 2016 that gave CBP authority to issue a polygraph waiver to 

certain veterans holding security clearances.13 In the first six 

months that CBP exercised this waiver authority, 90 candidates 

were considered for the waiver.14 Twenty applicants met all the requirements to move forward in the hiring process; 65 were denied; 

and 5 were still under review as of June 2017.15

S. 595 would expand CBP’s ability to issue a polygraph waiver 

to certain low-risk local and state law enforcement officers, Federal 

law enforcement officers, and veterans applying for law enforcement positions at one of the three CBP components. Local and 

state law enforcement officers who have the power to arrest and 

apprehend individuals could be considered for the waiver authority 

if they have served for the last three consecutive years; are not 

under investigation nor have been found to have engaged in criminal activity or serious misconduct; and have passed a polygraph 

test in the last ten years. 

Similarly, Federal law enforcement officers who have the power 

to arrest, investigate, bear firearms, and serve warrants could be 

considered for the waiver authority if they have served for the last 

three consecutive years; are not under investigation nor have been 

found to have engaged in criminal activity or serious misconduct; 

and hold a current Tier 4 or Tier 5 background examination. 

Finally, separating Department of Defense service members who 

have received or are eligible to receive an honorable discharge 

could be considered for the waiver authority if: they have served 

4 

for the last three consecutive years; have not engaged in criminal 

activity or serious misconduct under the military code; held a Secret, Top Secret, or TS compartment clearance in the last five years 

without a waiver; and had a Tier 4 or Tier 5 background investigation in the last five years. 

S. 595 also includes conditions to ensure existing vetting standards are maintained. A key provision of the legislation authorizes 

CBP to administer a polygraph test on any candidate that received 

a waiver if the component discovers some derogatory information 

at any point during the application process. Further, the legislation 

limits CBP’s use of the waiver authority to four years, and requires 

CBP to justify its use to Congress in a report. S. 595 also requires 

CBP to consider alternative methodologies to address its polygraph 

examination challenges, and encourages the components to develop 

a long-term strategic solution to meet their hiring goals. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 595, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017, 

was introduced on March 9, 2017, by Senator Jeff Flake and was 

cosponsored by Senators Ron Johnson, John McCain, and Claire 

McCaskill. The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered S. 595 at a business meeting on May 

17, 2017. Senator Johnson offered two amendments. Johnson 

Amendment 1 was a substitute amendment that made changes to 

some of the waiver criteria and added a sunset provision. The substitute amendment was adopted by unanimous consent, with Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. Johnson Amendment 2 clarified the definition of Federal law enforcement officer, and was adopted by voice vote, with Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, 

Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. 

Senator Heidi Heitkamp offered two amendments. Heitkamp 

Amendment 2, as modified, amended the sunset provision, reducing 

the number of years that the CBP Commissioner is authorized to 

use the waiver authority from five to four. That amendment was 

adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, 

Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and 

Harris present. 

Heitkamp Amendment 3, as modified, required CBP to include in 

its report an analysis of different methods available to detect deception and to complement traditional background investigations. 

That amendment was adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, 

McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Heitkamp, 

Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. 

Senator Kamala Harris offered five amendments. Harris Amendment 1, as modified, would have removed the bill’s waiver authority and replaced it with a requirement that the inspector general 

for the Department report on the impact of the waiver authority 

and limit the purpose of the initiative by turning it into a one-year 

pilot to test the effectiveness of the waiver authority. That amendment was not accepted on a voice vote with Senators Johnson, 

McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, 

Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. 

5 

Harris Amendment 2 was offered and withdrawn, as was Harris 

Amendment 5. 

Harris Amendment 3 would have transferred the reporting responsibility from the CBP Commissioner to the DHS inspector general and required a final report at the end of the program. That 

amendment was not accepted on a voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, 

Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. 

Harris Amendment 4 would have required the Department to 

provide monthly reports to Congress with detailed information regarding apprehensions and removals. That amendment was not accepted on a voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, 

Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris present. 

The Committee ordered S. 595 reported favorably, as amended 

by Johnson Amendments 1 and 2 and Heitkamp Amendments 2 as 

modified and 3 as modified, on May 17, 2017, by a roll call vote 

of 9 yeas to 2 nays. Senators voting in the affirmative were Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, 

Heitkamp, and Peters. Senators voting in the negative were Hassan and Harris. For the record only, Senators Enzi, Hoeven, and 

Tester voted ‘‘aye’’ by proxy. For the record only, Senator Carper 

voted ‘‘nay’’ by proxy. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Sec. 1. Short title 

This section provides the bill’s short title, the ‘‘Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.’’ 

Sec. 2. Hiring flexibility 

This section authorizes the Commissioner of CBP to waive the 

application of a polygraph examination for Federal, state, and local 

law enforcement officers as well as members of the Armed Forces 

or veterans who meet the stringent requirements outlined in the 

section. 

Additionally, this section sets a sunset on the Commissioner’s authority to issue a waiver four years after the date of enactment of 

the bill. 

Sec. 3. Supplemental Commissioner authority and definitions 

This section outlines additional authorities and responsibilities of 

the Commissioner as they relate to the polygraph waiver authorized by the legislation. First, it makes clear that any individual 

who receives a polygraph waiver is not exempt from other hiring 

requirements as determined by the Commissioner. Second, it directs that any individual who receives a polygraph waiver and currently holds a Tier 4 background investigation shall be subject to 

a Tier 5 background investigation. Third, it authorizes the Commissioner to administer a polygraph examination to an individual 

who was eligible to receive or did receive a waiver if information 

is gathered during the application process that would warrant such 

an examination before a final determination on employment. 

This section also requires that the Commissioner submit an annual report to Congress that includes details on the use of the polyVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:46 Jul 27, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR133.XXX SR133
6 

graph waiver authority; an assessment of the impact the authority 

is having on filling law enforcement positions at CBP; any additional authorities that may be necessary to carry out the waiver 

program; and an analysis with recommendations on other methods 

of employment suitability tests that could detect deception. 

Finally, Section 3 defines key terms: ‘‘federal law enforcement officer’’, ‘‘veteran’’, a ‘‘serious military or civil offense’’, and ‘‘Tier 4 

and Tier 5’’. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this act and determined that the act will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 12, 2017. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, Chairman, 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 595, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 595—Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017 

Current law requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

to administer polygraph examinations to nearly all applicants for 

law enforcement positions. S. 595 would broaden the criteria for 

waiving the polygraph requirement for certain applicants. Based on 

information from CBP, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would have no significant effect on the agency’s spending to vet applicants for law enforcement positions, because the expanded exemption would probably not affect very many people. 

Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting S. 595 would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 

beginning in 2028. 

S. 595 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On May 12, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017, as 

ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security 

7 

on May 3, 2017. The two bills are similar and CBO’s estimates of 

the budgetary effects are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE ACT, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 595 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter IV—Border, Maritime, and Transportation 

Security 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 221. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTERING POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) WAIVER.—The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection may waive the polygraph examination requirement 

under subsection (a)(1) for any applicant who— 

ø(1) is deemed suitable for employment; 

ø(2) holds a current, active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information Clearance; 

ø(3) has a current Single Scope Background Investigation; 

ø(4) was not granted any waivers to obtain his or her clearance; and 

ø(5) is a veteran (as defined in section 2108 of title 5).¿ 

(B) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection may waive the application of subsection (a)(1) for 

any of the following applicants: 

(1) In the case of a current, full-time law enforcement officer 

employed by a State or local law enforcement agency, if such officer— 

(A) has served as a law enforcement officer for not fewer 

than three years with no break in service; 

8 

(B) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 

prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of, or the 

incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and 

has statutory powers for arrest or apprehension; 

(C) is not currently under investigation, has not been 

found to have engaged in criminal activity or serious misconduct, has not resigned from a law enforcement officer 

position under investigation or in lieu of termination, and 

has not been dismissed from a law enforcement officer position; and 

(D) has, within the past ten years, successfully completed 

a polygraph examination as a condition of employment 

with such officer’s current law enforcement agency. 

(2) In the case of a current, full-time Federal law enforcement 

officer, if such officer— 

(A) has served as a law enforcement officer for not fewer 

than three years with no break in service; 

(B) has authority to make arrests, conduct investigations, 

conduct searches, make seizures, carry firearms, and serve 

orders, warrants, and other processes; 

(C) is not currently under investigation, has not been 

found to have engaged in criminal activity or serious misconduct, has not resigned from a law enforcement officer 

position under investigation or in lieu of termination, and 

has not been dismissed from a law enforcement officer position; and 

(D) holds a current Tier 4 background investigation or 

current Tier 5 background investigation. 

(3) In the case of an individual who is a member of the 

Armed Forces (or a reserve component thereof) or a veteran, if 

such individual— 

(A) has served in the Armed Forces for not less than three 

years; 

(B) holds, or has held during the past five years, a Secret, Top Secret, or Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented 

Information clearance; 

(C) holds, or has undergone within the past five years, a 

current Tier 4 background investigation or current Tier 5 

background investigation; 

(D) received, or is eligible to receive, an honorable discharge from service in the Armed Forces and has not engaged in criminal activity or committed a serious military 

or civil offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 

and 

(E) was not granted any waivers to obtain the clearance 

referred to subparagraph (B). 

(c) TERMINATION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The authority to issue 

a waiver under subsection (b) shall terminate on the date that is 

four years after the date of the enactment of the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017. 

ANTI-BORDER CORRUPTION ACT OF 2010 

* * * * * * * 

9 

øSEC. 4. PROGESS REPORT. 

øNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, and every 180 days thereafter through the date that is 2 years 

after such date of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on the progress 

made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection toward complying 

with section 3.¿ 

SEC. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY. 

(a) NON-EXEMPTION.—An individual who receives a waiver under 

subsection (b) of section 3 is not exempt from other hiring requirements relating to suitability for employment and eligibility to hold 

a national security designated position, as determined by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

(b) BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS.—Any individual who receives 

a waiver under subsection (b) of section 3 who holds a current Tier 

4 background investigation shall be subject to a Tier 5 background 

investigation. 

(c) ADMINISTRATION OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION.—The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is authorized to administer a polygraph examination to an applicant or employee who 

is eligible for or receives a waiver under subsection (b) of section 3 

if information is discovered prior to the completion of a background 

investigation that results in a determination that a polygraph examination is necessary to make a final determination regarding suitability for employment or continued employment, as the case may 

be. 

SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the 

enactment of the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 

2017, and annually thereafter while the waiver authority under section 3(b) is in effect, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection shall submit a report to Congress that includes, with respect to the reporting period— 

(1) the number of waivers requested, granted, and denied 

under section 3(b); 

(2) the reasons for any denials of such waiver; 

(3) the percentage of applicants who were hired after receiving a waiver; 

(4) the number of instances that a polygraph was administered to an applicant who initially received a waiver and the results of such polygraph; 

(5) an assessment of the current impact of the polygraph 

waiver program on filling law enforcement positions at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection; and 

(6) additional authorities needed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to better utilize the polygraph waiver program 

for its intended goals. 

(b) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—The first report submitted under 

subsection (a) shall include 

(1) an analysis of other methods of employment suitability 

tests that detect deception and could be used in conjunction 

10 

with traditional background investigations to evaluate potential 

employees for suitability; and 

(2) a recommendation regarding whether a test referred to in 

paragraph (1) should be adopted by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection when the polygraph examination requirement is 

waived pursuant to section 3(b). 

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.—The term ‘Federal 

law enforcement officer’ means a ‘law enforcement officer’, as 

defined in section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United States 

Code. 

(2) VETERAN.—The term ‘veteran’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code. 

(3) SERIOUS MILITARY OR CIVIL OFFENSE.—The term ‘serious 

military or civil offense’ means an offense for which— 

(A) a member of the Armed Forces may be discharged or 

separated from service in the Armed Forces; and 

(B) a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for 

the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for 

Courts-Martial, as pursuant to Army Regulation 635–200 

chapter 11 14–12. 

(4) TIER 4; TIER 5.—The terms ‘Tier 4’ and ‘Tier 5’ with respect to background investigations have the meaning given such 

terms under the 2012 Federal Investigative Standards. 

Æ