12:19 GMT03 August 2021
Listen Live
    US
    Get short URL
    0 21
    Subscribe

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should explain whether it is capable of hiring 7,500 border agents after spending more than $13 million on a private contract that resulted in only two new hires, according to a letter from Senate Budget Committee Chair Mike Enzi to CPB Commissioner Kevin McAleenan.

    Enzi cited a recent report by the CBP Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on a contract worth $297 million for a private company to help the agency hire 7,500 agents and officers during the next five years, the letter said.

    "OIG found that in the first ten months of the contract, CBP paid approximately $13.6 million for start-up costs, security requirements, recruiting and applicant support but that the contractor processed only two accepted job offers," the letter said.

    In addition to asking CBP how the contract had been managed and modified, Enzi’s letter questioned whether the agency is capable of meeting a goal to hire 7,500 agents in the next five years.

    WATCH: Migrants Storm US-Mexico Border, Rubber Bullets Fired by Border Control

    A CBP staffing shortfall was one reason cited in President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy nearly 6,000 US military forces to the border prior to the arrival of multiple migrant caravans from Central America.

    Trump has repeatedly called for an increase in border agents to enforce US immigration laws.

    Related:

    Two Honduran Migrant Teenagers Killed in Mexico Near US Border – Reports
    Pentagon Reduces Troop Levels at US-Mexico Border to 3,150
    ‘Culture of Cruelty’ Caused Death of 7-Year-Old Girl in US Border Patrol Custody
    Number of Travelers’ Electronics Probed by US Border Agents Spikes 174 Percent
    US Govt ‘Should Feel Responsible’ for Spike in Asylum Claims at Southern Border
    Tags:
    US, Mike Enzi, US Customs and Border Protection (CPB), Senate Budget Committee, contract, investigation, hiring
    Community standardsDiscussion