[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15852-15858]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               CROSS-BORDER TRADE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2016

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 875) to provide for alternative financing arrangements for 
the provision of certain services and the construction and maintenance 
of infrastructure at land border ports of entry, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 875

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cross-Border Trade 
     Enhancement Act of 2016''.

[[Page 15853]]



     SEC. 2. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 202 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

    ``Subtitle G--U.S. Customs and Border Protection Public Private 
                              Partnerships

     ``SEC. 481. FEE AGREEMENTS FOR CERTAIN SERVICES AT PORTS OF 
                   ENTRY.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 13031(e) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(e)) and section 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1451), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, upon the request of any entity, may enter into a 
     fee agreement with such entity under which--
       ``(1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall provide 
     services described in subsection (b) at a United States port 
     of entry or any other facility at which U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection provides or will provide such services;
       ``(2) such entity shall remit to U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection a fee imposed under subsection (h) in an amount 
     equal to the full costs that are incurred or will be incurred 
     in providing such services; and
       ``(3) if space is provided by such entity, each facility at 
     which U.S. Customs and Border Protection services are 
     performed shall be maintained and equipped by such entity, 
     without cost to the Federal Government, in accordance with 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection specifications.
       ``(b) Services Described.--The services described in this 
     subsection are any activities of any employee or Office of 
     Field Operations contractor of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection (except employees of the U.S. Border Patrol, as 
     established under section 411(e)) pertaining to, or in 
     support of, customs, agricultural processing, border 
     security, or immigration inspection-related matters at a port 
     of entry or any other facility at which U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection provides or will provide services.
       ``(c) Modification of Prior Agreements.--The Commissioner 
     of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at the request of an 
     entity who has previously entered into an agreement with U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection for the reimbursement of fees 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this section, may 
     modify such agreement to implement any provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(d) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Impacts of services.--The Commissioner of U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection--
       ``(A) may enter into fee agreements under this section only 
     for services that--
       ``(i) will increase or enhance the operational capacity of 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection based on available 
     staffing and workload; and
       ``(ii) will not shift the cost of services funded in any 
     appropriations Act, or provided from any account in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees, to entities under this Act; and
       ``(B) may not enter into a fee agreement under this section 
     if such agreement would unduly and permanently impact 
     services funded in any appropriations Act, or provided from 
     any account in the Treasury of the United States, derived by 
     the collection of fees.
       ``(2) Number.--There shall be no limit to the number of fee 
     agreements that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection may enter into under this section.
       ``(e) Air Ports of Entry.--
       ``(1) Fee agreement.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, a fee agreement for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection services at an air port of entry may only provide 
     for the payment of overtime costs of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection officers and salaries and expenses of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection employees to support U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection officers in performing services described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Small airports.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection may receive reimbursement in 
     addition to overtime costs if the fee agreement is for 
     services at an air port of entry that has fewer than 100,000 
     arriving international passengers annually.
       ``(3) Covered services.--In addition to costs described in 
     paragraph (1), a fee agreement for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection services at an air port of entry referred to in 
     paragraph (2) may provide for the reimbursement of--
       ``(A) salaries and expenses of not more than 5 full-time 
     equivalent U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers beyond 
     the number of such officers assigned to the port of entry on 
     the date on which the fee agreement was signed;
       ``(B) salaries and expenses of employees of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection, other than the officers referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), to support U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection officers in performing law enforcement functions; 
     and
       ``(C) other costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection relating to services described in subparagraph 
     (B), such as temporary placement or permanent relocation of 
     employees, including incentive pay for relocation, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) Port of Entry Size.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection shall ensure that each fee agreement 
     proposal is given equal consideration regardless of the size 
     of the port of entry.
       ``(g) Denied Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection denies a proposal for a fee agreement under 
     this section, the Commissioner shall provide the entity 
     submitting such proposal with the reason for the denial 
     unless--
       ``(A) the reason for the denial is law enforcement 
     sensitive; or
       ``(B) withholding the reason for the denial is in the 
     national security interests of the United States.
       ``(2) Judicial review.--Decisions of the Commissioner of 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection under paragraph (1) are in 
     the discretion of the Commissioner and are not subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(h) Fee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the fee to be charged 
     under an agreement authorized under subsection (a) shall be 
     paid by each entity requesting U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection services, and shall be for the full cost of 
     providing such services, including the salaries and expenses 
     of employees and contractors of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, to provide such services and other costs incurred 
     by U.S. Customs and Border Protection relating to such 
     services, such as temporary placement or permanent relocation 
     of such employees and contractors.
       ``(2) Timing.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection may require that the fee referred to in paragraph 
     (1) be paid by each entity that has entered into a fee 
     agreement under subsection (a) with U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection in advance of the performance of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection services.
       ``(3) Oversight of fees.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection shall develop a process to oversee the 
     services for which fees are charged pursuant to an agreement 
     under subsection (a), including--
       ``(A) a determination and report on the full costs of 
     providing such services, and a process for increasing such 
     fees, as necessary;
       ``(B) the establishment of a periodic remittance schedule 
     to replenish appropriations, accounts, or funds, as 
     necessary; and
       ``(C) the identification of costs paid by such fees.
       ``(i) Deposit of Funds.--
       ``(1) Account.--Funds collected pursuant to any agreement 
     entered into pursuant to subsection (a)--
       ``(A) shall be deposited as offsetting collections;
       ``(B) shall remain available until expended without fiscal 
     year limitation; and
       ``(C) shall be credited to the applicable appropriation, 
     account, or fund for the amount paid out of such 
     appropriation, account, or fund for any expenses incurred or 
     to be incurred by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 
     providing U.S. Customs and Border Protection services under 
     any such agreement and any other costs incurred or to be 
     incurred by U.S. Customs and Border Protection relating to 
     such services.
       ``(2) Return of unused funds.--The Commissioner of U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection shall return any unused funds 
     collected and deposited into the account described in 
     paragraph (1) if a fee agreement entered into pursuant to 
     subsection (a) is terminated for any reason or the terms of 
     such fee agreement change by mutual agreement to cause a 
     reduction of U.S. Customs and Border Protections services. No 
     interest shall be owed upon the return of any such unused 
     funds.
       ``(j) Termination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection shall terminate the services provided 
     pursuant to a fee agreement entered into under subsection (a) 
     with an entity that, after receiving notice from the 
     Commissioner that a fee under subsection (h) is due, fails to 
     pay such fee in a timely manner. If such services are 
     terminated, all costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection that have not been paid shall become immediately 
     due and payable. Interest on unpaid fees shall accrue based 
     on the rate and amount established under sections 6621 and 
     6622 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Penalty.--Any entity that, after notice and demand 
     for payment of any fee under subsection (h), fails to pay 
     such fee in a timely manner shall be liable for a penalty or 
     liquidated damage equal to two times the amount of such fee. 
     Any such amount collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited into the appropriate account specified under 
     subsection (i) and shall be available as described in such 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Termination by the entity.--Any entity who has 
     previously entered into an agreement with U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection for the reimbursement of fees in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this section, or under the 
     provisions of this section, may request that such agreement 
     be amended to provide for termination upon advance notice, 
     length, and terms that are negotiated between such entity and 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
       ``(k) Annual Report.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection shall--

[[Page 15854]]

       ``(1) submit an annual report identifying the activities 
     undertaken and the agreements entered into pursuant to this 
     section to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       ``(B) the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       ``(C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       ``(D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       ``(E) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(F) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(G) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(H) the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(2) not later than 15 days before entering into a fee 
     agreement, notify the members of Congress that represent the 
     State or Congressional District in which the affected port of 
     entry or facility is located of such agreement.
       ``(l) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed as imposing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     any responsibilities, duties, or authorities relating to real 
     property.

     ``SEC. 482. PORT OF ENTRY DONATION AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Personal Property Donation Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, in consultation with the Administrator of 
     General Services, may enter into an agreement with any entity 
     to accept a donation of personal property, money, or 
     nonpersonal services for the uses described in paragraph (3) 
     only with respect to the following locations at which U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection performs or will be performing 
     inspection services:
       ``(A) A new or existing sea or air port of entry.
       ``(B) An existing Federal Government-owned land port of 
     entry.
       ``(C) A new Federal Government-owned land port of entry 
     if--
       ``(i) the fair market value of the donation is $50,000,000 
     or less; and
       ``(ii) the fair market value, including any personal and 
     real property donations in total, of such port of entry when 
     completed, is $50,000,000 or less.
       ``(2) Limitation on monetary donations.--Any monetary 
     donation accepted pursuant to this subsection may not be used 
     to pay the salaries of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     employees performing inspection services.
       ``(3) Uses.--Donations accepted pursuant to this subsection 
     may be used for activities of the Office of Field Operations 
     set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 
     411(g)(3), which are related to a new or existing sea or air 
     port of entry or a new or existing Federal Government-owned 
     land port of entry described in paragraph (1), including 
     expenses related to--
       ``(A) furniture, fixtures, equipment, or technology, 
     including the installation or deployment of such items; and
       ``(B) the operation and maintenance of such furniture, 
     fixtures, equipment, or technology.
       ``(b) Real Property Donation Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration, as 
     applicable, may enter into an agreement with any entity to 
     accept a donation of real property or money for uses 
     described in paragraph (2) only with respect to the following 
     locations at which U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     performs or will be performing inspection services:
       ``(A) A new or existing sea or air port of entry.
       ``(B) An existing Federal Government-owned land port of 
     entry.
       ``(C) A new Federal Government-owned land port of entry 
     if--
       ``(i) the fair market value of the donation is $50,000,000 
     or less; and
       ``(ii) the fair market value, including any personal and 
     real property donations in total, of such port of entry when 
     completed, is $50,000,000 or less.
       ``(2) Use.--Donations accepted pursuant to this subsection 
     may be used for activities of the Office of Field Operations 
     set forth in section 411(g), which are related to the 
     construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of a new 
     or existing sea or air port of entry or a new or existing a 
     Federal Government-owned land port of entry described in 
     paragraph (1), including expenses related to--
       ``(A) land acquisition, design, construction, repair, or 
     alteration; and
       ``(B) operation and maintenance of such port of entry 
     facility.
       ``(3) Limitation on real property donations.--A donation of 
     real property under this subsection at an existing land port 
     of entry owned by the General Services Administration may 
     only be accepted by the Administrator of General Services.
       ``(4) Sunset.--
       ``(A) In general.--The authority to enter into an agreement 
     under this subsection shall terminate on the date that is 
     four years after the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--The termination date referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to carrying out the 
     terms of an agreement under this subsection if such agreement 
     is entered into before such termination date.
       ``(c) General Provisions.--
       ``(1) Duration.--An agreement entered into under subsection 
     (a) or (b) (and, in the case of such subsection (b), in 
     accordance with paragraph (4) of such subsection) may last as 
     long as required to meet the terms of such agreement.
       ``(2) Criteria.--In carrying out an agreement entered into 
     under subsection (a) or (b), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of General Services, shall establish criteria regarding--
       ``(A) the selection and evaluation of donors;
       ``(B) the identification of roles and responsibilities 
     between U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the General 
     Services Administration, and donors;
       ``(C) the identification, allocation, and management of 
     explicit and implicit risks of partnering between the Federal 
     Government and donors;
       ``(D) decision-making and dispute resolution processes; and
       ``(E) processes for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and 
     the General Services Administration, as applicable, to 
     terminate agreements if selected donors are not meeting the 
     terms of any such agreement, including the security standards 
     established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
       ``(3) Evaluation procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, in consultation with the Administrator of 
     General Services, as applicable, shall--
       ``(i) establish criteria for evaluating a proposal to enter 
     into an agreement under subsection (a) or (b); and
       ``(ii) make such criteria publicly available.
       ``(B) Considerations.--Criteria established pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall consider--
       ``(i) the impact of a proposal referred to in such 
     subparagraph on the land, sea, or air port of entry at issue 
     and other ports of entry or similar facilities or other 
     infrastructure near the location of the proposed donation;
       ``(ii) such proposal's potential to increase trade and 
     travel efficiency through added capacity;
       ``(iii) such proposal's potential to enhance the security 
     of the port of entry at issue;
       ``(iv) the impact of the proposal on reducing wait times at 
     that port of entry or facility and other ports of entry on 
     the same border;
       ``(v) for a donation under subsection (b)--

       ``(I) whether such donation satisfies the requirements of 
     such proposal, or whether additional real property would be 
     required; and
       ``(II) how such donation was acquired, including if eminent 
     domain was used;

       ``(vi) the funding available to complete the intended use 
     of such donation;
       ``(vii) the costs of maintaining and operating such 
     donation;
       ``(viii) the impact of such proposal on U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection staffing requirements; and
       ``(ix) other factors that the Commissioner or Administrator 
     determines to be relevant.
       ``(C) Determination and notification.--
       ``(i) Incomplete proposals.--

       ``(I) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving 
     the proposals for a donation agreement from an entity, the 
     Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall 
     notify such entity as to whether such proposal is complete or 
     incomplete.
       ``(II) Resubmission.--If the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection determines that a proposal is 
     incomplete, the Commissioner shall--

       ``(aa) notify the appropriate entity and provide such 
     entity with a description of all information or material that 
     is needed to complete review of the proposal; and
       ``(bb) allow the entity to resubmit the proposal with 
     additional information and material described in item (aa) to 
     complete the proposal.
       ``(ii) Complete proposals.--Not later than 180 days after 
     receiving a completed proposal to enter into an agreement 
     under subsection (a) or (b), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection, with the concurrence of the 
     Administrator of General Services, as applicable, shall--

       ``(I) determine whether to approve or deny such proposal; 
     and
       ``(II) notify the entity that submitted such proposal of 
     such determination.

       ``(4) Supplemental funding.--Except as required under 
     section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, real property 
     donations to the Administrator of General Services made 
     pursuant to subsection (a) and (b) at a GSA-owned land port 
     of entry may be used in addition to any other funding for 
     such purpose, including appropriated funds, property, or 
     services.

[[Page 15855]]

       ``(5) Return of donations.--The Commissioner of U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection, or the Administrator of 
     General Services, as applicable, may return any donation made 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or (b). No interest shall be owed 
     to the donor with respect to any donation provided under such 
     subsections that is returned pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(6) Prohibition on certain funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (a) 
     and (b) regarding the acceptance of donations, the 
     Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the 
     Administrator of General Services, as applicable, may not, 
     with respect to an agreement entered into under either of 
     such subsections, obligate or expend amounts in excess of 
     amounts that have been appropriated pursuant to any 
     appropriations Act for purposes specified in either of such 
     subsections or otherwise made available for any of such 
     purposes.
       ``(B) Certification requirement.--Before accepting any 
     donations pursuant to an agreement under subsection (a) or 
     (b), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     shall certify to the congressional committees set forth in 
     paragraph (7) that the donation will not be used for the 
     construction of a detention facility or a border fence or 
     wall.
       ``(7) Annual reports.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, in collaboration with the Administrator of 
     General Services, as applicable, shall submit an annual 
     report identifying the activities undertaken and agreements 
     entered into pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       ``(B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate;
       ``(C) the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       ``(D) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       ``(E) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       ``(F) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(G) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(H) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(I) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       ``(J) the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(d) GAO Report.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit an annual report to the congressional 
     committees referred to in subsection (c)(7) that evaluates--
       ``(1) fee agreements entered into pursuant to section 481;
       ``(2) donation agreements entered into pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b); and
       ``(3) the fees and donations received by U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection pursuant to such agreements.
       ``(e) Judicial Review.--Decisions of the Commissioner of 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Administrator of 
     the General Services Administration under this section 
     regarding the acceptance of real or personal property are in 
     the discretion of the Commissioner and the Administrator and 
     are not subject to judicial review.
       ``(f) Rule of Construction.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this section, nothing in this section may be construed as 
     affecting in any manner the responsibilities, duties, or 
     authorities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection or the 
     General Services Administration.

     ``SEC. 483. CURRENT AND PROPOSED AGREEMENTS.

       ``Nothing in this subtitle or in section 4 of the Cross-
     Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016 may be construed as 
     affecting--
       ``(1) any agreement entered into pursuant to section 560 of 
     division D of the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6) or section 559 of 
     title V of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
     2014 (6 U.S.C. 211 note; Public Law 113-76), as in existence 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of this subtitle, 
     and any such agreement shall continue to have full force and 
     effect on and after such date; or
       ``(2) a proposal accepted for consideration by U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection pursuant to such section 559, as in 
     existence on the day before such date of enactment.

     ``SEC. 484. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Donor.--The term `donor' means any entity that is 
     proposing to make a donation under this Act.
       ``(2) Entity.--The term `entity' means any--
       ``(A) person;
       ``(B) partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, 
     association, or any other organized group of persons;
       ``(C) Federal, State or local government (including any 
     subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof); or
       ``(D) any other private or governmental entity.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by 
     adding at the end of the list of items relating to title IV 
     the following:

    ``Subtitle G--U.S. Customs and Border Protection Public Private 
                              Partnerships

``Sec. 481. Fee agreements for certain services at ports of entry.
``Sec. 482. Port of entry donation authority.
``Sec. 483. Current and proposed agreements.
``Sec. 484. Definitions.''.

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Section 907(b) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
     Enforcement Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-125) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the program for entering into reimbursable fee 
     agreements with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     established under section 481 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002.''.

     SEC. 4. REPEALS.

       (a) Contract Authority.--Section 560 of division D of the 
     Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 
     (Public Law 113-6) is repealed.
       (b) Partnership Pilot Program.--Section 559 of division F 
     of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (6 U.S.C. 211 
     note; Public Law 113-76) is repealed.

     SEC. 5. WAIVER OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT APPLICANTS.

       Section 3 of the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-376; 6 U.S.C. 221) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``The Secretary'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1), as redesignated, by inserting 
     ``(except as provided in subsection (b))'' after ``Border 
     Protection''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(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--
       ``(1) is deemed suitable for employment;
       ``(2) holds a current, active Top Secret/Sensitive 
     Compartmented Information Clearance;
       ``(3) has a current Single Scope Background Investigation;
       ``(4) was not granted any waivers to obtain his or her 
     clearance; and
       ``(5) is a veteran (as defined in section 2108 of title 5, 
     United States Code).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 875, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  After my remarks, I will include in the Record an exchange of letters 
between the chairmen of the two committees.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 875, the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 
2016, is a commonsense, broadly supported, bipartisan bill that will 
provide a mechanism for increased trade enforcement while also 
enhancing the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel. I am pleased 
to note that the other body passed an identical bill by unanimous 
consent just last week, signaling widespread support. Through this 
legislation, we continue to demonstrate our commitment to providing the 
necessary tools to maintain American economic competitiveness while 
preventing the entry of illicit goods into the United States.
  U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the Federal law enforcement 
agency responsible for facilitating international travel and trade at 
our Nation's ports of entry as well as for detecting and interdicting 
counterfeit, unsafe, and fraudulently entered goods. Last year, the CBP 
processed more than 382 million passengers at the Nation's 328 land, 
sea, and air ports of entry and over $2.4 trillion worth of goods. The 
CBP estimates that inbound trade and traffic will continue to grow.
  In 2013 and 2014, Congress created 5-year pilot programs authorizing 
the

[[Page 15856]]

CBP to enter into reimbursable agreements with public and private 
entities as a way to meet the escalating demands of increased trade and 
traffic at the ports of entry. These agreements with private and public 
sector entities allow for additional inspectional services beyond what 
the CBP would have normally allocated at ports of entry. They provide 
additional resources to increase enforcement and processing capacity 
and to improve dated infrastructure at our ports.
  Since 2013, the CBP has entered into reimbursable service agreements 
with 29 stakeholders at land, sea, and air ports of entry. These 
agreements have contributed to more than 125,000 additional processing 
hours to meet stakeholder demand during which 3 million travelers and 
almost 460,000 vehicles were processed. The pilot programs have been 
widely regarded as forward-leaning and an effective way to enforce our 
laws at the border and to meet the demands of increased trade and 
travel.
  Today's legislation would move beyond these tested pilot programs to 
establish more permanent authority for the CBP to enter into these 
arrangements, providing the opportunity to make the CBP more efficient 
and effective at our borders.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2016.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady: I am writing concerning H.R. 875, the 
     Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2015.
       This legislation contains provisions within the Committee 
     on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your 
     having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite 
     this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on 
     Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being 
     done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so 
     will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and 
     in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of 
     this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2016.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway, Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 875, the ``Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2015.'' 
     As you noted, the Committee on Agriculture has a 
     jurisdictional interest in this bill.
       I am most appreciative of your decision to waive formal 
     consideration of H.R. 875 so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor. I acknowledge that although 
     you waived formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on 
     Agriculture is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter contained in those provisions of the bill that 
     fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support your 
     effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees on any House-Senate conference involving this 
     legislation.
       I will include a copy of our letters in the committee 
     report on this legislation, as well as in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Brady,
                                                         Chairman.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I stand in support of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016.
  This bill offers a pragmatic and bipartisan solution to a real and 
growing problem: Customs and Border Protection simply has not been able 
to keep pace, and has not been given the resources to keep pace, with 
the dramatic growth in travel into the United States.
  In the last fiscal year, for example, the CBP processed more than 384 
million passengers and more than $2.4 trillion of imported goods 
through our air, land, and sea ports, but the CBP's staffing levels 
have not kept pace with this growth over the years. The result has been 
substantial and unnecessary delays as passengers and cargo ships wait 
to be processed.
  Not only is this a bipartisan issue, but just as importantly, I think 
it calls into meaning how we might solve some of the problems that 
confront America economically. A case in point: it is generally large 
businesses, medium-sized businesses, and small businesses that tend not 
to take a position in support of more government but which, in this 
instance, would ask for more government. There is nothing wrong with 
that inconsistency. In fact, I think, in this particular instance, it 
works quite well because they will ask for more agents for the purpose 
of moving cargo faster. I think that is an entirely reasonable 
position.
  This bill will help to address those delays by increasing trade and 
travel efficiencies and by eliminating unnecessary redtape in the 
hiring process at no cost to the taxpayer.
  This approach has already been tested, and it has passed the test. In 
2013 and 2014, Congress authorized pilot programs, as Dr. Boustany has 
noted, to enable the CBP to enter into agreements with private sector, 
State, and local government entities that would reimburse the CBP for 
customs-related personnel services at ports of entry. These public-
private agreements are believed to have decreased wait times by an 
average of 30 percent at the ports at which they were implemented. The 
bill also allows for more of these agreements and for a longer period 
of time.
  For these reasons, I support this bipartisan bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it later on this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hurd).
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 875, the 
Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act.
  This bipartisan bill is the product of significant work throughout 
the course of the 114th Congress across both Chambers and across 
committee jurisdiction to ensure that a program that many border 
communities rely upon continues to return dividends.
  I am proud to represent over 800 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, 
including the communities and the businesses that thrive on cross-
border trade. Over the past two decades, our Nation's trade with Mexico 
has grown by leaps and bounds, much of it through our land ports of 
entry. In 2015 alone, Texas businesses exported $92 billion in goods 
and services to Mexico--that is $92 billion with a ``B''--more than the 
next four largest markets combined. However, border infrastructure has 
not kept up with the growth. The lack of infrastructure and staffing 
that is necessary to support increased levels of trade crossing into 
this country has a very real impact on those we serve and work with 
daily.
  This legislation fixes the problem by empowering local leaders and 
increasing flexibility, with little to no cost to the Federal 
Government and taxpayers. By allowing local communities and 
organizations to form public-private partnerships with the Federal 
Government and to make improvements to our ports of entry, we are 
investing in the infrastructure that supports our economy. Similar 
legislation passed the House in a bipartisan manner earlier this year 
and passed out of the Senate unanimously.
  The failure to capitalize on this momentum merely leaves this 
critical program adrift right when its benefits are about to be 
realized. Decreasing the time it takes to move goods and services 
safely across the border will have a tremendous economic impact on not 
only the region, but on our Nation.
  I thank the leadership of fellow Texans and my friends, Senator 
Cornyn, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. O'Rourke; and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas

[[Page 15857]]

(Mr. Cuellar), who has been a leader on this very issue and has helped 
to design the very product that is in front of us today, and I think 
that he can take great satisfaction from the bipartisan nature of the 
legislation that we are about to entertain.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal) and his staff for helping to put this together. I appreciate 
it.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and 
his staff for putting this bill on a very fast-moving track.
  And in particular, I want to thank my good old friend--and I say 
``good old friend'' in a nice way--Chairman Kevin Brady. We go back to 
working together in the State legislature. We have been working in 
Texas on issues like this for so many years, and I certainly want to 
thank Chairman Brady for his work and the bipartisan staff for moving 
this bill quickly.
  In particular, I want to thank my colleagues. Mr. Hurd over here, who 
has a lot of border and he has got a lot of ports of entry, I want to 
thank him for his leadership on this bill.
  I also want to thank Beto O'Rourke, my friend from El Paso, who also 
understands, just like Mr. Hurd does, the importance of trade.
  I thank our Senate sponsor, Senator Cornyn, who has done a great job 
on this particular bill.
  The Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016 is a bill that builds 
upon the work that Chairman John Carter and myself added in the 
appropriations bill back in 2013 and 2014 to ease the delays and 
improve the infrastructure at our Nation's land and sea and air ports 
of entry.
  As has been said, trade and travel to the U.S. has been increasing 
for the last 10 years. In fiscal year 2015, our Nation saw 382 million 
travelers processed at the Nation's 328 land, sea, and air ports of 
entry. In particular I want to emphasize the land ports of entry. Over 
80 percent of all of the people who come into the United States, all of 
the goods that come into the United States, come in through land ports 
of entry, and that is why this bill is very important.
  As was mentioned a few minutes ago, $2.4 trillion of trade was 
processed at our ports of entry. And just as an example--and I know Mr. 
Hurd mentioned it; I know Mr. O'Rourke is going to mention it--in my 
port of entry, Laredo, for example, it is a small town of 250,000, but 
it handles 14,000 trailers a day of trade between the U.S. and Mexico. 
If you look at the largest customs districts, you have L.A., New York, 
and then you have Laredo. So this bill is very important to Laredo and 
the rest of the border itself.
  Despite this growing trade that we have at our ports of entry, CBP 
staffing levels have been stagnant. Back in 2014, the Appropriations 
Committee and Congress authorized over $255 million to increase the CBP 
workforce, which includes hiring 2,000 new CBP officers. However, they 
have been struggling to hire those 2,000 CBP officers due to attrition, 
but also due to the long time that it takes to hire those new officers.
  The other part that is important is, if you look at the land ports of 
entry, for example, there are a lot of challenges--and I am talking 
about the southern and the northern ports of entry that we have. In 
fact, it would cost us about $5 billion in capital improvements to make 
sure that we do this work.
  What are we doing in Congress? Well, we are adding about $146 million 
a year to meet this $5 billion that we need. So at this rate of $146 
million a year, it would take 34 years to meet that $5 billion that we 
need. Therefore, the Federal Government is not going to add those 
appropriations.
  I understand money is tight. We need to bring in the local government 
and especially the private sector to make sure that we address the 
undersized facilities, the outmoded technologies that we have, the 
officer safety issues that we have, and the long wait times that we 
have, which I call parking lots, because a lot of times these trucks 
are waiting in the middle of the bridge.
  Therefore, on sections 559 and 560, what we did is we said we are 
going to bring the private sector in, and it has worked well in doing 
this. We have seen--and I think it has been mentioned, but I will 
mention it again. We entered into 29 of those stakeholder reimbursement 
service agreements, and we saw more additional processing hours to make 
sure that we moved 3 million additional travelers and almost 460,000 
new vehicles.
  Again, this is going to help us.
  What does this bill do? This bill will help us expand that pilot 
program in many ways and authorize it for 10 years. This bill will 
limit the number of reimbursable service agreements that we have at the 
ports of entry, but, more importantly, it is going to allow us to hire 
CBP officers faster. I know the chairman knows this very well. Imagine 
if we have this. We have got to bring officers into the CBP faster, and 
this is what this bill will do.
  So again, I want to thank the House sponsors, Kevin Brady, Chairman 
Michael McCaul, Mr. Hurd, and Mr. O'Rourke, and, of course, on the 
Senate side, Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar for making sure that 
we did it and that we are doing it in a bipartisan way.
  I ask that we pass this bill.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. I thank my colleague from the Pelican State and also the 
ranking member from the Bay State.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a bit nervous. I don't want to break up this Lone 
Star class reunion here, but speaking on behalf of a small place in the 
intermountain west, section 481 of H.R. 875 addresses a CBP staffing 
issue at smaller land port of entry airports.
  As we all know, the CBP mission at our numerous ports of entry is 
growing, and adequate staffing at the larger ports needs to be 
augmented. However, airport authorities and smaller land ports of entry 
are also increasing their international passenger counts and need 
additional CBP personnel to adequately screen their passengers.
  The language contained herein allows small land port airports to 
reimburse CBP the actual cost of assigning up to five more CBP 
screening personnel, thereby keeping screening times within reasonable 
limits for those air passengers. This language represents bicameral, 
bipartisan, nationwide consensus on a needed staffing reimbursement 
option for CBP. Similarly, I urge Members' bipartisan nationwide 
support.
  God bless the State of Texas and the other 49 also.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. O'Rourke), another individual who has had a profound influence on 
this legislation and has had a long-time interest in the topic as well.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, our new 
ranking member on the committee, for yielding and for his work on this 
important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few things as important for us in this 
Congress to work on as creating more jobs and sustaining those that we 
have right now. U.S.-Mexico trade today supports more than 6 million 
jobs in every single State of the Union, 500,000 jobs in the State of 
Texas alone, and one out of every four jobs in the community that I 
have the honor to represent, El Paso, Texas.
  The men and women who serve in Customs and Border Protection, the 
officers in blue at our ports of entry, are understaffed and 
overstressed, and they need our help. What we are doing in this bill is 
allowing local communities and local stakeholders who have an interest 
in the success of our ports of entry and in U.S.-Mexico trade and in 
creating more jobs to fund the necessary overtime hours and 
infrastructure improvements at those ports.
  I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and in 
both Chambers--Senator Cornyn in the other Chamber, Members Cuellar and 
Hurd and others in this one--who see the wisdom in allowing local 
communities to fill the gap where government has been unable to do so.
  Whether it is the $90 billion in U.S.-Mexico trade that crosses the 
El Paso-Ciudad Juarez ports of entry every

[[Page 15858]]

year or the 32 million inspections that are conducted there, this is a 
way to grow our economy. It is a way to ensure that we are more secure 
because we know precisely who is coming in when we have the manpower 
and infrastructure to inspect all those who want to cross in here. We 
are allowing local communities and not the Federal Government to pick 
up the tab in a way that is going to benefit this country as a whole.
  I couldn't help but notice the current chair of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, the incoming chair, and the ranking member, who are 
all here. I know they are all pleased to see in this bill an expedited 
process to hire our veterans, to transition them from Active Duty 
service to meaningful employment as a Customs officer through an 
expedited process in this bill. That means we staff more of our CBP 
positions, we put more veterans to work, and we do better for this 
country.
  This is a bill that should have the support of every single Member of 
this Congress, and I urge its quick passage.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members wishing to speak 
on the bill, and I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Dr. Boustany, who has been a friend on the Ways and 
Means Committee. I assume this might be his last time handling 
legislation on the floor. He was great to work with over the years.
  I take some satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, that having either been 
chairman or ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, that I simply wore them all down because, 
every 2 years, they would send somebody else over to share that 
responsibility.
  Dr. Boustany is a real gentleman. He has been a friend, and he has 
been a very nice guy to work with.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his very, very 
kind words. It has been a true pleasure working with him on the Tax 
Policy Subcommittee. I want to congratulate him on becoming ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Committee. I know he will do a fabulous 
job. I am only sorry I won't be around next year to work with him and 
beyond. I congratulate him.
  Godspeed, do a great job, and get tax reform done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 875, the Cross-
Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, to strengthen our ability to 
enforce U.S. trade laws.
  I am very pleased that our solution has such strong bipartisan 
support and makes good on our commitment to stop the flow of illicit 
goods while also facilitating legitimate trade that is vital to 
American economic competitiveness. I urge passage of this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 875, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________