PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 10, 2018
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Hiring and Retention Act of 2017 or the CBP HiRe Act
(Sec. 2) This bill provides hiring and compensation flexibilities to support the recruitment, relocation, and retention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees in rural or remote areas.
Specifically, if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines there is a critical hiring need and a direct relationship between the rural or remote nature of an area and the difficulty recruiting and retaining CBP employees in that area, then it may exercise direct hire authority and pay recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses. Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management may establish special pay rates.
The DHS Office of Inspector General must review the use of hiring and compensation flexibilities and determine whether they help meet hiring and retention needs in rural and remote areas.
DHS must report to Congress on the number of requests it receives from other federal agencies for the file of an applicant for a position in the CBP that includes the results of a polygraph examination.
People & committees
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6774-6775; text: CR S6774-6775)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6774-6775; text: CR S6774-6775)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 447.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-270.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-270.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S3329-3330)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1305 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1305 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1305 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1305 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.