U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–394 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

CBP WORKFORCE CHALLENGES: EXPLORING 

SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS RECRUITMENT AND 

RETENTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Serial No. 116–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico 

MAX ROSE, New York 

LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois 

ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Tennessee 

VAN TAYLOR, Texas 

JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas 

MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi 

HOPE GOINS, Staff Director 

CHRIS VIESON, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico, Chairwoman 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Ranking Member 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

VAN TAYLOR, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama (ex officio) 

LISA CANINI, Subcommittee Staff Director 

KATY FLYNN, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Xochitl Torres Small, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Mexico, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Management, and Accountability: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Dan Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, 

and Accountability: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Mr. Benjamine ‘‘Carry’’ Huffman, Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner, 

Enterprise Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 8 

Mr. Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, Government Accountability Office: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Rodolfo Karisch, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. 

Border Patrol: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 23 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 8 

PANEL II 

Mr. John B. Goodman, Chief Executive, Accenture Federal Services: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

Mr. Anthony M. Reardon, President, The National Treasury Employees 

Union: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

APPENDIX 

Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Benjamine ‘‘Carry’’ 

Huffman ................................................................................................................ 55 

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Benjamine ‘‘Carry’’ 

Huffman ................................................................................................................ 56 

Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Benjamine ‘‘Carry’’ Huffman ........... 57 

Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Rebecca Gambler ......... 57 

Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins for Rodolfo Karisch ............................. 58 

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for John B. Goodman ............ 58 

(1) 

CBP WORKFORCE CHALLENGES: EXPLORING 

SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS RECRUITMENT 

AND RETENTION 

Thursday, March 7, 2019 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Xochitl Torres Small 

[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Torres Small, Titus, Barraga ́n, Crenshaw, Higgins, and Taylor. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. The Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Accountability will come to order. The subcommittee is 

meeting today to receive testimony on ‘‘CBP Workforce Challenges: 

Exploring Solutions to Address Recruitment and Retention.’’ 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I welcome the new Members of the subcommittee, including Ranking 

Member Dan Crenshaw. 

It is great to see you. 

I look forward to working with everyone here and everyone on 

the committee to conduct important oversight of the Department of 

Homeland Security. As a Member who represents a district on the 

Southern Border, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical issue of recruitment, hiring, and retention at the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection. 

CBP employs nearly 45,000 law enforcement personnel across 

three operational components: The Office of Field Operations, OFO; 

U.S. Border Patrol; and Air and Marine Operations. These personnel have the tremendously important mission of safeguarding 

our Nation’s borders while facilitating lawful trade and travel. 

More specifically, they are responsible for preventing terrorists 

and terrorist weapons from entering the United States and preventing the illegal trafficking of people, narcotics, and contraband 

into the United States. 

At the same time, CBP personnel are charged with facilitating 

cross-border commerce that is the lifeblood of communities like 

mine and essential to our National economy, as well. 

However, critical law enforcement positions at CBP are currently 

vacant. In recent years CBP has been unable to achieve minimum 

staffing levels for its Border Patrol agent positions or its staffing 

2 

goals for other law enforcement officer positions. The agency has 

acknowledged difficulties with its lengthy 12-step hiring process, 

which includes a medical exam and a polygraph. The time-to-hire 

is on average 300 days, and less than 3 percent of applicants successfully complete the hiring process. 

Additionally, as a native of southern New Mexico, I know full 

well the challenges that CBP faces in attracting and retaining 

qualified personnel, particularly in remote areas where an employee’s spouse may have trouble finding a job or children may have 

to travel to attend school. 

Further, being a CBP officer or Border Patrol agent is a demanding job that requires an extraordinary amount of dedication. Agents 

and officers often work long hours in difficult conditions. 

I look forward to hearing about possible solutions to workforce 

challenges, including nonfinancial and financial incentives. I welcome any ideas that witnesses or my colleagues have for attracting 

and retaining qualified applicants. 

I hope we can also discuss the lessons learned from CBP’s hiring 

contract with Accenture Federal Services, and I understand there 

is a partial stop work order and changes are being made to the contract to focus on advertising, marketing, and developing innovative 

practices. I want to learn more about the innovative ideas being 

considered for reducing CBP’s time-to-hire and using data analytics 

to make recruitment more effective and efficient. 

I believe the recruiting, hiring, and retention problems can be 

solved if we work together to address them, and I look forward to 

continuing that effort today. 

Again, thank you to all of the witnesses for being here, and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Torres Small follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN XOCHITL TORRES SMALL

MARCH 7, 2019 

Good afternoon. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

I welcome the new Members of the subcommittee, including Ranking Member 

Crenshaw. 

I look forward to working with all of you to conduct important oversight of the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

As a Member who represents a district on the Southern Border, I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss the critical issue of recruitment, hiring, and retention at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. 

CBP employs nearly 45,000 law enforcement personnel across its three operational components—the Office of Field Operations (OFO), U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), and Air and Marine Operations (AMO). 

These personnel have the tremendously important mission of safeguarding our 

Nation’s borders while facilitating lawful trade and travel. More specifically, they 

are responsible for preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the 

United States and preventing the illegal trafficking of people, narcotics, and contraband into the United States. At the same time, CBP personnel are charged with facilitating cross-border commerce that is the lifeblood of communities like mine and 

essential to our National economy as well. 

However, critical law enforcement positions at CBP are vacant. In recent years, 

CBP has been unable to achieve minimum staffing levels for its Border Patrol agent 

positions or its staffing goals for other law enforcement officer positions. 

The agency has acknowledged difficulties with its lengthy 12-step hiring process, 

which includes a medical exam and polygraph. The time-to-hire is on average 300 

days, and less than 3 percent of applicants successfully complete the hiring process. 

3 

Additionally, as a native of southern New Mexico, I know full well the challenges 

that CBP faces in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly in remote areas where an employee’s spouse may have trouble finding a job and children 

must travel far to attend school. 

Further, being a CBP officer or Border Patrol agent is a demanding job that requires an extraordinary amount of dedication. Agents and officers often work long 

hours in difficult conditions. 

I look forward to hearing about possible solutions to workforce challenges, including non-financial and financial incentives. I welcome any ideas the witnesses—or my 

colleagues—have for attracting and retaining qualified applicants. 

I hope we can also discuss the lessons learned from CBP’s hiring contract with 

Accenture Federal Services. I understand there is a partial stop work order and that 

changes are being made to the contract to focus on advertising, marketing, and developing innovative practices. 

I want to learn more about the innovative ideas being considered for reducing 

CBP’s time-to-hire and using data analytics to make recruitment more effective and 

efficient. 

I believe the recruiting, hiring, and retention problems can be solved if we work 

together to address them, and I look forward to continuing that effort today. Again, 

thank you to all of the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. I now want to recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small. I really 

look forward to working with you. I think we are going to have a 

great time on this committee and get some things done in a very 

bipartisan fashion. 

To my fellow Members, it is an honor to serve with you as Ranking Member on this subcommittee, and I look forward to getting to 

know all of you, as well. 

We have a great opportunity to work together in a bipartisan 

manner to provide oversight, ensure quality and efficient management, and uphold accountability at the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

As Members of this subcommittee of the Homeland Security 

Committee we recognize that border security is critical to the National security of the United States. We must be willing and able 

to welcome visitors and trade into this country, but also have the 

capability to turn away those who seek to enter the country illegally. 

The agents and officers of the Customs and Border Protection are 

on the front lines, protecting our borders every day. They are the 

first line of defense on our border and at our ports of entry. The 

work they do is critical to the safety of our country. 

CBP is responsible for securing approximately 7,000 miles of 

land border, and in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard approximately 95,000 miles of shoreline. It is not an easy job and oftentimes it is thankless. 

Agents and officers work long hours, often in very remote areas 

of the country, facing some of the toughest conditions. From the intense heat of the desert in the Southwest to the bone-chilling cold 

in the North, many of them are on the clock at all hours of the day 

and night. 

It takes a unique group of dedicated individuals to take on these 

jobs, and I have the utmost respect for the men and women who 

do. I want to make sure they have the best possible working conditions and we are attracting and retaining the best talent. I look forVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
4 

ward to hearing from today’s witnesses on the best ways to achieve 

that goal. 

To ensure the effective operation of the border we must ensure 

CBP has the necessary tools and staffing. We know that providing 

CBP with sophisticated technological tools, such biometric readers, 

sensors, radar, and drones, also allows them to operate more efficiently. 

We know that border fencing is an effective tool in the CBP toolbox because it allows agents to cover more ground. Agents cannot 

be in all places at all times, and a barrier gives them the opportunity to target resources. 

These tools are all necessary, but there is no substitute for boots 

on the ground. Without sufficient staffing these tools are wasted. 

As we continue to face larger groups of people seeking asylum and 

larger numbers of families attempting to enter the country, we 

must have enough agents and officers to effectively manage that 

flow. 

In recent years CBP has had trouble meeting its targets for its 

other law enforcement entities. CBP has not met its Congressionally-mandated hiring levels since fiscal year 2014, and at the current rate it takes approximately 50 applicants to hire 1 CBP agent 

or officer. 

In January 2017 President Trump issued an Executive Order requiring CBP to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents. CBP is currently short 6,927 Border Patrol agents, 1,000 CBP officers, and 

over 600 AMO front-line personnel. These personnel shortages create National security risks. They slow the movement of commerce, 

and they put additional strain on an already overworked border enforcement work force. 

In 2018 hiring outpaced attrition. Unfortunately, the fact remains CBP has had a difficult time recruiting and retaining the 

appropriate talent. 

The lengthy hiring process may be somewhat of a deterrent as 

it is 11 steps and includes a background investigation, medical 

exam, a polygraph examination. According to the GAO, the average 

length of time to hire an applicant was 318 days for a CBP officer 

and 274 for a Border Patrol agent. That is a long time to wait to 

start a job, and even the most dedicated individuals could be discouraged. 

One of the biggest barriers to bringing on talent in recent years 

is the polygraph process, which has a high failure rate. In fiscal 

year 2017 only 26 percent of Border Patrol agent applicants and 25 

percent of CBP officers passed. A pilot program has been undertaken to improve on this process, and I look toward to hearing 

more about that today. 

I have introduced legislation that I believe will help attract even 

more talented individuals, such as veterans, State and local law enforcement, and other Federal law enforcement officers by allowing 

the polygraph to be waived for these individuals with the appropriate clearances. 

Thank you all for being here. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Crenshaw follows:] 

5 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DAN CRENSHAW

MARCH 7, 2019 

Chairwoman Torres Small, fellow Members, it is an honor to serve with you as 

Ranking Member on this subcommittee. I look forward to getting to know all of you 

and working with you to solve problems and uphold our duty to the American people. We have a great opportunity to work together in a bipartisan manner to provide 

oversight, ensure quality and efficient management, and uphold accountability in 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

As Members of the Committee on Homeland Security, we recognize that border 

security is critical to the National security of the United States. We must be willing 

and able to welcome visitors and trade into this country, but also have the capability to turn away those who seek to enter the country illegally. The agents and 

officers of the Customs and Border Protection are on the front lines protecting our 

borders every day. They are the first line of defense on our border and at our ports 

of entry. The work they do is critical to the safety of our country. 

CBP is responsible for securing approximately 7,000 miles of land border; and in 

partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, approximately 95,000 miles of shoreline. It 

is not an easy job, and often times it is thankless. Agents and officers work long 

hours in often times very remote areas of the country facing some of the toughest 

conditions. From the intense heat of the desert in the Southwest to the bone-chilling 

cold in the North, many of them are on the clock at all hours of the day and night. 

It takes a unique group of dedicated individuals to take on these jobs and I have 

the utmost respect for the men and women who do. I want to make sure that they 

have the best possible working conditions and we are attracting and retaining the 

best talent. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on the best ways to 

achieve that goal. 

To ensure the effective operation of the border, we must ensure CBP has the necessary tools and staffing. We know that providing CBP with sophisticated technological tools such as biometric readers, sensors, radar, and drones also allows them 

to operate more efficiently. We know that border fencing is an effective tool in the 

CBP toolbox because it allows agents to cover more ground. Agents cannot be in all 

places at all times, but a barrier gives them the opportunity to target resources. 

These tools are all necessary, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground. 

Without sufficient staffing, these tools are wasted. As we continue to face larger 

groups of people seeking asylum and larger numbers of families attempting to enter 

the country, we must have enough agents and officers to effectively manage the 

flow. 

In recent years, CBP has had trouble meeting its targets for its other law enforcement entities. CBP has not met its Congressionally-mandated hiring levels since fiscal year 2014. At the current rate, it takes approximately 50 applicants to hire one 

CBP agent or officer. In January 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order 

requiring CBP to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents. CBP is currently short 

6,927 Border Patrol agents, 1,000 CBP officers, and over 600 AMO front-line personnel. These personnel shortages create National security risks, slow the movement of commerce, and put additional strain on an already overworked border enforcement workforce. In 2018 hiring outpaced attrition. Unfortunately, the fact remains, CBP has had a difficult time recruiting and retaining the appropriate talent. 

The lengthy hiring process may be somewhat of a deterrent as it is 11 steps and 

includes a background investigation, medical examination, and a polygraph examination. According to GAO, the average length of time to hire an applicant in fiscal 

year was 318 days for a CBP officer and 274 days for a Border Patrol agent. This 

is a long time to wait to start a job and even the most dedicated individuals could 

be discouraged. 

One of the biggest barriers to bringing on talent in recent years is the polygraph 

process, which has a high failure rate. In fiscal year 2017 only 26 percent of Border 

Patrol agent applicants and 25 percent of CBP officers passed. 

A pilot program has been undertaken to improve on this process and I look forward to hearing more about that today. 

I have introduced legislation that I believe will help to attract even more talented 

individuals such as veterans, State and local law enforcement, and other Federal 

law enforcement officers by allowing the polygraph to be waived for these individuals with the appropriate clearances. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

6 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MARCH 7, 2019 

Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small and Ranking Member Crenshaw for holding today’s hearing. 

I am confident that under the Chairwoman’s leadership, this subcommittee will 

do great work on behalf of the committee and the American people. 

Today, the committee is examining how to address Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) hiring challenges. 

More than 2 years ago, President Trump issued an Executive Order seeking to 

hire an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents. In the rush to meet this hiring demand, CBP entered into a 5-year $297 million contract with Accenture with a goal 

of hiring 7,500 Border Patrol agents and CBP officers. 

More than a year later, CBP has spent nearly $20 million and only hired 35 

agents and officers. 

While I am encouraged CBP came to its senses and issued a partial stop work 

order on the contract, I continue to have doubts about CBP’s decision making as 

it tries to address its hiring struggles. I am concerned that this administration has 

acted in a rush to fulfill campaign promises rather than taking a thoughtful approach to hiring. 

Before contracting out its hiring at a potential cost of $300 million, CBP needed 

to address systemic problems at the agency leading to attrition among its existing 

workforce and difficulty recruiting and hiring new personnel. 

As CBP assesses which aspects of the Accenture contract are and are not effective, 

it must refocus its hiring efforts on where its true needs lie. For example, CBP officers are a critical, yet often forgotten, resource in combatting drug trafficking. Indeed, they work on the front line at our ports of entry where most of the illegal 

drugs are smuggled into our country. 

It is encouraging that the DHS appropriations bill for 2019 authorizes over $58 

million for 600 new CBP officers. I hope to hear from our witnesses today whether 

this request meets the needs at our ports of entry. 

While CBP struggles to meet its long-standing staffing goals, it also must take 

steps to ensure that it retains its current personnel. Unfortunately, CBP faces high 

attrition rates across the component. This is not surprising given that the most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey ranked CBP 372nd out of 415 agency subcomponents. 

To address these attrition and morale challenges, CBP should consider implementing workforce incentives to promote retention of its current personnel. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on what actions CBP is taking 

to evaluate the need for new personnel and develop a clear plan to better retain 

them once on duty. With that, I thank the witnesses for being here today and look 

forward to a productive hearing. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. We are going to have two panels today, and 

I just want to make a brief note about that. 

On this subcommittee I am very excited about working together 

to find solutions, and I think we have an incredible opportunity to 

do that. We have great people at the table today to help us do that. 

In the future I think the more people we can have at that table 

to work through those things so we can have the same questions 

asked to multiple people, the easier it will be. 

So I was a little disappointed the Department wasn’t able to 

make that happen this time, but I deeply appreciate having everyone here and look forward to having a productive conversation and 

continuing to do that in the future. 

So I welcome the first panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. 

Benjamine ‘‘Carry’’ Huffman, who serves as the acting assistant 

7 

commissioner of enterprise services at U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Huffman has served in many roles during his more than 30 

years at CBP. In his current role as acting EAC he oversees 8 offices that touch key processes, such as hiring, procurement, training, and facilities management. 

Next we have Ms. Rebecca Gambler, who is a director in the 

Government Accountability Office, GAO, Homeland Security and 

Justice Team. Ms. Gambler joined GAO in 2002 and currently 

leads the agency’s work on border security, immigration, and election issues. 

Finally, we are joined by Chief Patrol Agent Rodolfo Karisch, 

who was tapped to lead the U.S. Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley 

sector in January 2019. Chief Karisch oversees Border Patrol’s 

work in a sector that includes more than 34,000 square miles of 

southeast Texas. Chief Karisch previously served as the chief of the 

Tucson and Del Rio sectors. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his or her 

statements for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Huffman. 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMINE ‘‘CARRY’’ HUFFMAN, ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENTERPRISE SERVICES, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to 

be here. 

Chairwoman Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, it is my honor to appear before you today representing the hardworking men and women of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. I am proud to serve an organization that plays such an important role for the security of our 

Nation. 

CBP is responsible for managing risks and threats along 7,000 

miles of border, 95,000 miles of shoreline, and 328 ports of entry. 

We are the Nation’s first line of defense against international terrorists. We intercept billions of dollars’ worth of dangerous narcotics, we facilitate lawful trade for roughly 1 million people every 

day, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. We enforce hundreds 

of U.S. laws and regulations on issues from immigration to trade. 

This is noble and vital work, but there is one serious problem: 

There are not enough of us. 

To accomplish the broad scope of CBP’s missions we need capable, dedicated personnel. Air and Marine Operations need pilots to 

disrupt cocaine traffickers before they reach our shores. The Border 

Patrol needs agents to combat human smugglers. The Office of 

Field Operation needs officers to examine cargo for dangerous or illicit content. 

These aren’t optional tasks. They are inherent to our Nation’s security and our economic prosperity. However, historically, CBP has 

faced a number of challenges in hiring and retaining suitable candidates. While some of these factors are unique to CBP, such as our 

responsibility for securing extremely remote locations, other aspects are common across law enforcement. 

8 

Our jobs are not for everyone. We demand vigilance and integrity 

in our public servants. As such, CBP has made it a priority to attract, hire, retain, and support a world-class resilient work force. 

Over the past 3 years CBP has made several improvements to 

our hiring process. We have targeted potential candidates who are 

interested in public service, such as criminal justice majors at colleges and universities, and continue to direct our recruitment resources toward veterans and transitioning service members. 

We started an applicant care program where recruiters stay in 

touch and help applicants throughout the hiring process. We are 

exploring creative ways to use pay and compensation flexibilities 

and provide a number of monetary and nonmonetary benefits to 

our CBP work force. 

For example, CBP’s Office of Field Operations offers incentives 

and encourages applicants to accept job offers in critically understaffed, hard-to-fill ports. Since July 2015, 1,300 applicants have 

accepted CBP’s job offers with a 25 percent or 33 percent recruitment incentive each year for a 3-year service period. These incentives have resulted in both Ports of San Ysidro and Laredo closing 

their staffing gaps along with numerous hard-to-fill ports along the 

Northern Border. 

These improvements and others have led to significant recruitment and hiring gains. From fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018 

CBP achieved a 95 percent increase in overall Border Patrol hires, 

a 39 percent increase in CBP officer hires, and, in fact, for the first 

time in 6 years CBP hired more Border Patrol agents than were 

lost to attrition. 

However, we know there is much more work to do. We continue 

to look for ways to expedite the hiring process while maintaining 

the highest standards for our candidates. We continue to improve 

staffing models and build mobility programs. We continue to develop programs that support our work force and their families because we know there are sacrifices involved with public service. 

I cannot speak more plainly. In law enforcement people give 

their lives in the line of duty. We owe those who are called to serve 

a measure of respect and dignity. The men and women of CBP 

carry out difficult, sometimes dangerous work on behalf of the 

American people. I am honored to be a part of their ranks and 

proud to speak on their behalf. 

There is one more thing I would like to say before closing: CBP 

is hiring. If you have friends, relatives, or constituents of high 

moral character and are looking for a way to serve the greater 

good, there is no better organization in the Federal Government to 

do so than for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They can visit 

us at CBP.gov/careers to learn more and apply. I will say that 

again, CBP.gov/careers. We are hiring. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Karisch 

follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENJAMINE ‘‘CARRY’’ HUFFMAN AND RODOLFO KARISCH

MARCH 7, 2019 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee, it is my honor to testify before you today on behalf of the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) workforce. 

9 

I would like to begin with a few examples of the outstanding work the men and 

women of CBP do every day: 

• On January 26, 2019, CBP officers at the Nogales Commercial Facility in Arizona seized nearly 650 pounds of fentanyl and methamphetamine from a traveler when he attempted to enter the United States. It was the largest seizure 

of fentanyl in CBP’s history, and the third-largest methamphetamine seizure at 

an Arizona port. 

• On February 14, 2019, in three separate incidents, Border Patrol agents from 

the Del Rio Sector’s Special Operations Detachment and marine units from the 

Eagle Pass station rescued 17 Central American migrants from drowning in the 

Rio Grande River. Seven of the 17 migrants rescued were children. 

• During the partial Government shutdown, working without a paycheck, aircrews from the National Air Security Operations Center in Corpus Christi, 

Texas, flew 271 hours on 29 missions and stopped nearly 11,000 pounds of cocaine from reaching the U.S. border. 

• On February 11, 2019, Border Patrol agents at the Calexico Station in California arrested a man suspected of entering the United States illegally. When 

they transported him to the El Centro Station to confirm his identity, agents 

discovered the man was a convicted sex offender. 

• In the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day, CBP agriculture specialists at 

Miami International Airport processed approximately 950 million cut flower imports, protecting our Nation’s crops from dangerous pests and plant diseases. 

• On February 4, 2019, CBP kept tuna harvested with forced labor out of the 

United States food supply by issuing a withhold release order against tuna and 

tuna products from the Tunago No. 61 Importers. 

As these cases illustrate, CBP’s missions are diverse, challenging, and vitally important. We are charged with keeping terrorists, criminals, narcotics, and dangerous 

goods out of the United States, while simultaneously facilitating lawful trade and 

travel. To accomplish these missions, we need capable, dedicated personnel. 

Commissioner McAleenan has made it a priority to attract, hire, train, retain, and 

support a world-class, resilient workforce. This has resulted in several improvements to CBP’s hiring process and significant recruitment and hiring gains. In fiscal 

year 2018, CBP hired more law enforcement personnel than we lost to attrition, 

with staffing levels of 23,477 CBP officers (an increase of 398) and 19,555 Border 

Patrol agents (an increase of 118) at the end of the fiscal year. From fiscal year 

2016 to fiscal year 2018, CBP also increased Air Interdiction agent hiring by 119 

percent and Marine Interdiction agent hiring by 11 percent. CBP achieved a 95 percent increase in overall Border Patrol agent hires and a 39 percent increase in CBP 

officer hires from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. In fact, for the first time in 

6 years, CBP hired more Border Patrol agents than were lost to attrition. 

With support from Congress, we are making investments in our capability and capacity to hire across all front-line positions, focusing on attracting qualified candidates and expediting their progress through the CBP hiring process. CBP is also 

strengthening its ability to retain its existing workforce and improve workforce resilience. 

HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES

However, challenges remain. CBP is the Nation’s largest Federal law enforcement 

organization, and many of our challenges are shared across other Federal, State, 

and local law enforcement agencies. The public scrutiny of law enforcement in general, combined with the requirement to work variable schedules, long shifts, and in 

remote locations are some of the reasons why individuals may be reluctant to apply 

for law enforcement positions. In addition, societal views and changing generational 

values make it more difficult to attract qualified and suitable candidates. 

Other recruitment and hiring challenges are unique to CBP. Our agency is responsible for managing risks and threats along 7,000 miles of Northern and Southern Border, 95,000 miles of shoreline, and 328 ports of entry. As a result, some of 

our duty stations are in extremely remote areas, a significant distance from amenities and services such as medical care, child care and schools, and employment opportunities for spouses. Geographically remote locations are often accompanied by 

extreme environments and harsh weather conditions. Difficulty in staffing these locations may also be affected by a lack of affordable housing choices, consumer goods 

and services, and local infrastructure. Some hard-to-fill and geographically remote 

locations are sometimes associated with a higher cost of living. 

One example of a hard-to-fill location is Lukeville, Arizona. Although many of our 

Arizona border locations are remote and hard to fill, Lukeville is particularly challenging. It is an isolated outpost along the Mexican border, in a community of fewer 

10 

than 50 people. It has one small grocery store and gas station. The closest school 

and medical clinic is 39 miles away in Ajo, Arizona. The nearest metropolitan 

area—Phoenix—is 150 miles away. The climate is especially harsh; in the summer, 

many of the local roads are impassible because of monsoons. Furthermore, the 

groundwater in Lukeville requires significant treatment to make it potable, due to 

traces of arsenic. 

The challenges CBP faces with hard-to-fill and remote locations include the limited pool of qualified and suitable candidates interested in working and living in 

these locales. While CBP has the ability to offer incentives for individuals to apply 

for, relocate to, or remain at these locations, incentives cannot solve basic, fundamental needs of our workforce and their families, such as readily accessible medical 

facilities, schools, and potable water. 

Working for CBP is not for everyone—we seek individuals committed to our core 

values of vigilance, integrity, and service to country. As such, our hiring program 

is intentionally rigorous. Individuals must successfully complete an entrance exam, 

qualifications review, interview, medical exam, drug screening, physical fitness test, 

polygraph examination, and a background investigation. By design, the hiring process is challenging for most applicants; as a result, a large number do not meet the 

agency’s employment requirements. 

The Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 requires CBP to administer polygraph examinations to all applicants for law enforcement positions. The polygraph examination ensures CBP maintains the highest standards of integrity as we select only 

those applicants who are most suitable for a law enforcement position. However, the 

number of Federally-certified polygraph examiners is limited (as there is only one 

Federal polygraph school and its throughput is limited), leading to competition 

among all Federal law enforcement agencies to fully staff polygraph programs. As 

a result, CBP has been unable to hire enough polygraph examiners to keep pace 

with its hiring pipeline, contributing to delays in processing applicants through the 

hiring process. 

RESPONDING TO STAFFING CHALLENGES

Recruitment Initiatives 

A key component of CBP’s efforts is increasing the number of applicants in the 

pre-employment process. CBP established the National Frontline Recruiting Command (NFRC) to coordinate and strengthen recruiting efforts. This team, comprised 

of CBP front-line personnel and mission-focused experts, developed a National 

Frontline Recruitment Strategic Plan that outlines the strategic objectives, critical 

National- and local-level partnerships, and robust outreach strategies for front-line 

recruitment. 

CBP directs a large portion of our recruitment resources toward veterans and 

transitioning service members—one of the most important communities in CBP’s 

staffing efforts, as veterans comprise nearly 30 percent of our workforce. (In 2018, 

Monster.com named CBP as one of the ‘‘Best Companies for Veterans.’’ It was the 

third year in a row CBP was honored with this distinction, and is the only Federal 

agency named to Monster.com’s list.) CBP has partnered with the U.S. Department 

of Defense to open permanent CBP recruitment offices on multiple military bases, 

including Fort Bliss, Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell, Fort Hood, Fort Drum, Camp 

Lejeune, and Joint Base Lewis McChord. 

Under the NFRC, CBP recruiters continue to participate in thousands of recruitment events each year; since the beginning of fiscal year 2017, CBP has participated 

in more than 5,000 recruitment events. CBP has also increased and professionalized 

its recruiter workforce, establishing a cadre of nearly 1,500 recruiters Nation-wide 

who are professionally trained and fully versed in the principles of applicant care. 

This includes a 5-day National Recruiter Course that establishes a high training 

standard for recruiters, promoting quality service to applicants. 

CBP also continues to implement a large-scale digital advertising effort incorporating data-driven marketing across multiple platforms, and planning recruitment 

events throughout the country. Through advanced data analytics, we identify areas 

with low ‘‘brand awareness’’ of CBP and refocus our marketing efforts to address 

these gaps. CBP has also developed candidate profiles, calibrating our marketing 

and communication efforts to these intended audiences. This way we target potential candidates who are more suited to the demands of CBP’s front-line mission. 

Through these enhanced recruitment capabilities, CBP continues to attract applicants to our front-line positions at a high rate, exceeding 165,000 applicants in both 

fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018. 

11 

Hiring Initiatives 

CBP continues to assess every aspect of our hiring practices, identifying and removing redundancies and ensuring that the best-qualified applicants move through 

the process in a timelier manner. Over the past year, CBP has increased the number of human resources staff and contractors at the CBP Hiring Center by more 

than 25 percent to better handle the volume of front-line applicants and pre-employment requirement reviews. 

Focusing on the suitability portion of our hiring process, specifically the polygraph 

examination and the background investigation, in the past 2 years CBP has increased its polygraph examiner workforce, despite the limited availability of this talent; contracted with the private sector to maximize the number of available polygraph examiners; permanently implemented a shorter but equally effective polygraph format; completed an assessment of our background investigation process, 

which now allows some applicants to attend the academy on a provisional clearance 

while the full background investigation is being conducted; and completed a pre-security interview pilot designed to identify unsuitable candidates prior to administering the polygraph. 

To help keep applicants engaged throughout the hiring process, we have implemented an Applicant Care Program wherein recruiters help applicants throughout 

the hiring process. This program is designed to increase the number of applicants 

with recruitment efforts and prevent applicants from dropping out of the hiring 

process. By working one-on-one with applicants throughout the process, our applicant quality is projected to increase while the discontinuation rate decreases. To 

help applicants know where they are in the application and hiring process, CBP developed a mobile application, CBPJobs, which allows applicants to track their 

progress throughout the hiring process. 

In addition, CBP recently launched the Fast Track Hiring Process, an expedited 

hiring program that streamlines the hiring process for CBP officer and Border Patrol agent applicants who can commit to accelerated hiring time frames. Under the 

Fast Track program, applicants who agree to complete required steps in the hiring 

process within set time lines can move through the hiring process more quickly. The 

Fast Track Hiring Process is aimed at reducing the time to hire to 120 days or 

fewer. 

Other hiring process improvements include revisions to the entrance exam, which 

reduced the average test time from 4 hours to less than 3 hours, and revisions to 

the medical exam designed to reduce the number of applicants requiring medical follow-up. In addition, in 2017, all entry-level front-line duty locations were changed 

to ‘‘location negotiable’’ in job announcements. This allows additional flexibility to 

both applicants and program offices, and allows applicants to select a location from 

a list of duty stations with the greatest staffing needs. 

I want to assure the subcommittee that none of the changes we have made to our 

hiring process has lowered the standards that applicants must meet in order to become a CBP law enforcement officer. CBP’s hiring process remains rigorous and we 

continue to recruit and hire people of the highest caliber. 

In 2017, our efforts to improve hiring led the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to identify the CBP Hiring Center as a ‘‘best-in-class Federal hiring program’’ 

that exemplified innovation and excellence. 

Retention Initiatives 

To reduce attrition and better serve our workforce, CBP is working to retain personnel. 

In fiscal year 2017, CBP launched its Operational Mobility Program for Border 

Patrol agents, which addresses the No. 1 reason agents cite for leaving CBP: The 

inability to relocate. Some offices are using reassignment programs and/or ‘‘job 

swaps’’ to offer enhance mobility and developmental opportunities to those who are 

seeking a change in location. 

CBP has implemented retention incentives for the Office of Field Operations, U.S. 

Border Patrol, Air and Marine Operations, and the Office of Professional Responsibility. CBP is also exploring creative ways to retain law enforcement personnel in 

the future. 

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published in June 

2018 recommended that systematically capturing and analyzing a wide range of information on all departing CBP law enforcement officers and the factors that influenced their decision to leave would better position CBP to understand and address 

its retention challenges. CBP concurred with GAO’s recommendation, and agrees 

that high-quality exit survey data is essential to support and inform retention efforts. We are beginning to implement this recommendation, to capture issues beyond 

those already known (e.g. ‘‘inability to relocate’’). 

12 

Resilience Initiatives 

CBP is also implementing multiple efforts to improve workforce resilience, to better care for the men and women who give so much in the service of our country. 

The reality is that our front-line personnel often work in challenging environments, 

and have a difficult—often dangerous—mission. This sort of work can pose significant mental and physical challenges. Regrettably, between 2007 and 2018, more 

than 100 CBP employees died by suicide—and a single suicide in our ranks is one 

too many. 

In 2016, Commissioner McAleenan created the National Resiliency Task Force 

(NRTF) to focus on suicide prevention and awareness, and improve the overall wellbeing of CBP employees and their families. In October 2017, Commissioner 

McAleenan established a Workforce Resilience and Engagement Division within the 

CBP Office of Human Resources Management to further support our workforce and 

maximize employee wellness and engagement. 

Although we cannot change the harsh realities of our jobs, we can give our frontline personnel tools to help them cope. We offer a best-in-class Employee Assistance 

Program to our employees and their families, and we encourage its use, making 

what it offers better known. We offer health and wellness programs, and child and 

elder care support. 

We have also launched the Traumatic Incident and Events Response Team, a pilot 

program aimed a mitigating potential negative outcomes for employees who experience traumatic events; established unified CBP Peer Support and Chaplaincy training programs; held multiple family outreach events; and partnered with the RAND 

Corporation to conduct an employee survey focused on health, resilience, and 

wellness. 

Additionally, as a consequence of our difficult and dangerous mission, 41 officers 

and agents have died in the line of duty since the creation of CBP in 2003. Furthermore, 206 officers, agents, and inspectors from our legacy agencies have paid the 

ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. To address the many challenges that 

follow an employee’s death and that extend well beyond the immediate aftermath 

of the tragedy and memorial service, Commissioner McAleenan established the Survivor Advocate Program to assist surviving family members navigate through the 

complex benefits system, identify available resources, and enhance engagement and 

communication. The program’s mission is to develop long-term strategies, policies, 

and process changes to correct issues and concerns affecting our surviving families. 

CONCLUSION

Our workforce is critical to accomplishing our CBP missions. With the support of 

Congress to provide us with the resources, authorities, and legislative changes requested, I believe that CBP will make strides in every area of our operations. As 

we continue to build our workforce through recruitment, hiring, retention, and resilience initiatives, we will maintain the integrity and professionalism the American 

people both expect and deserve. I appreciate your time and look forward to your 

questions. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Ms. Gambler to summarize her statement for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. GAMBLER. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing to discuss 

GAO’s work on CBP’s efforts to recruit, hire, and retain law enforcement personnel. 

CBP employs nearly 45,000 law enforcement personnel across its 

three operational components, which are the Office of Field Operations, the Border Patrol, and Air and Marine Operations. In recent years CBP has not been able to meet its staffing goals for law 

enforcement positions and has cited high attrition rates in some loVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
13 

cations, a protracted hiring process, and competition with other law 

enforcement agencies as contributing to its staffing shortfalls. 

Our past work has identified areas of progress and challenges in 

CBP’s recruitment, hiring, and retention efforts, which I will briefly 

summarize. 

First CBP has taken steps to improve its recruitment efforts. For 

example, CBP established a centralized recruitment office in 2016 

and increased its participation and recruitment events. CBP also 

increased its use of recruitment incentives, particularly for CBP officers, and CBP officials told us that those incentives have been effective in filling staffing shortages at hard-to-fill locations. 

As a result of these and other efforts, CBP experienced an increase in the number of applications it received from fiscal years 

2013 through 2017. As an example, the number of applications for 

Border Patrol agent positions increased from roughly 27,000 in fiscal year 2013 to more than 91,000 in fiscal year 2017. 

Second, CBP has taken steps to enhance its hiring process, which 

has led to improved performance in two key hiring metrics. These 

two metrics include the time to hire and the overall applicant pass 

rate, the latter of which calculates the estimated percentage of applicants who successfully complete the hiring process and enter on 

duty. 

CBP’s time to hire for all law enforcement officer positions decreased from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. As an example, the 

time to hire decreased by 78 days for CBP officer positions. 

Further, overall applicant pass rates more than doubled for CBP 

officer and Border Patrol agent positions from fiscal year 2016 to 

2017. 

As a result of these and other efforts, CBP experienced an increase in the number of applicants who completed the hiring process and entered on duty during the first half of fiscal year 2018 

compared to the first half of fiscal year 2017. 

However, despite these increases, CBP lost more officers and 

agents than it hired during the first half of fiscal year 2018, illustrating the continued challenges CBP faces in retaining law enforcement personnel and meeting its staffing goals. 

Among other efforts it has taken toward improving the hiring 

process, CBP contracted with Accenture in November 2017 to help 

the agency recruit and hire the 5,000 Border Patrol agents called 

for in a January 2017 Executive Order, as well as an additional 

2,000 CBP officers and 500 Air and Marine Operations personnel. 

Under the contract Accenture is responsible for enhancing CBP’s 

recruitment efforts and managing the hiring process for its recruits. At the time of our report last summer we noted that it was 

too early to evaluate the impact this contract might have on the 

recruiting and hiring processes. 

Finally, with regard to retaining law enforcement personnel, 

CBP has strengthened its retention efforts through, for example, 

the use of relocation opportunities and financial incentives. CBP’s 

annual attrition rates for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents 

have generally been lower than those rates at other law enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Prisons. 

14 

However, in recent years CBP has remained below its staffing 

goals. For example, Border Patrol finished fiscal year 2017 nearly 

2,000 agents below its statutorily-established minimum level and 

7,000 below the staffing target established in response to the Executive Order. We also found that CBP could do more to collect and 

analyze information on law enforcement officers leaving the agency. 

In closing, CBP has made progress in improving its recruitment, 

hiring, and retention efforts. Even so, CBP faces continued challenges to its efforts, particularly in retaining law enforcement officers in hard-to-fill locations. CBP also needs to fully implement our 

recommendation to more systematically collect and use data on departing law enforcement officers. 

Members of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gambler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER

MARCH 7, 2019 

GAO HIGHLIGHTS

Highlights of GAO–19–419T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Management, and Accountability, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study 

CBP is responsible for securing U.S. borders and employs nearly 45,000 law enforcement officers across its three operational components at and between U.S. ports 

of entry, in the air and maritime environment, and at certain overseas locations. 

In recent years, CBP has not attained target staffing levels for its law enforcement 

positions, citing high attrition rates in some locations, a protracted hiring process, 

and competition from other law enforcement agencies. 

This statement addresses CBP’s efforts to: (1) Recruit and more efficiently hire 

law enforcement applicants, and (2) retain law enforcement officers. This statement 

is based on a GAO report issued in June 2018 on CBP’s recruiting, hiring, and retention efforts along with updates as of February 2019 on actions CBP has taken 

to address GAO’s prior recommendation. For the previous report, GAO analyzed 

CBP data on recruitment efforts, hiring process steps, and retention rates; examined 

strategies related to these activities; and interviewed CBP officials and union 

groups. GAO also reviewed information on CBP actions to implement GAO’s prior 

recommendation. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO recommended in its June 2018 report that CBP systematically collect and 

analyze data on departing law enforcement officers and use this information to inform retention efforts. DHS concurred, and CBP has actions planned or under way 

to address this recommendation. 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.—PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN RECRUITING, 

HIRING, AND RETAINING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

What GAO Found 

In June 2018, GAO reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) increased its emphasis on recruitment by establishing a central recruitment office in 

2016 and increasing its participation in recruitment events, among other things. As 

a result, the number of applications it received for law enforcement positions across 

its operational components—the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Border Patrol, and 

Air and Marine Operations—more than tripled from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. 

Also, in November 2017, CBP hired a contractor to more effectively target potential 

applicants and better utilize data to enhance CBP’s recruitment and hiring efforts. 

However, at the time of GAO’s June 2018 report, it was too early to gauge whether 

the contractor would be effective in helping CBP to achieve its goal to recruit and 

hire more law enforcement officers. 

15 

1Within CBP’s three operational components—OFO, Border Patrol, and AMO—there are 5 

categories of law enforcement officer positions, each with different job requirements and responsibilities. First, OFO’s CBP officers conduct immigration and customs inspections at ports of 

entry to prevent the illicit entry of travelers, cargo, merchandise, and other items. Second, Border Patrol agents are responsible for securing the U.S. border between ports of entry and responding to cross-border threats. Third, AMO has three categories of law enforcement officers— 

Air Interdiction agents, Aviation Enforcement agents, and Marine Interdiction agents—who 

interdict and disrupt threats to the United States in the air and maritime environments at and 

beyond the border. 

CBP improved its hiring process as demonstrated by two key metrics—reducing 

its time to hire and increasing the percentage of applicants that are hired. As shown 

in the table, CBP’s time to hire decreased from fiscal year 2015 through 2017. CBP 

officials stated that these improvements, paired with increases in applications, have 

resulted in more hires. However, the hiring process remains lengthy. For example, 

in fiscal year 2017, CBP officer applications took more than 300 days, on average, 

to process. Certain factors contributed to the lengthy time to hire, including process 

steps that can be challenging and time-consuming for applicants to complete—such 

as the polygraph exam—as well as CBP’s reliance on applicants to promptly complete certain aspects of the process—such as submitting their background investigation form. 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION’S (CBP) TIME-TO-HIRE FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITIONS, FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2015–2017 

Law Enforcement Officer Position 

Days 

Fiscal 

Year 2015 

Fiscal 

Year 2016 

Fiscal 

Year 2017 

CBP officer .............................................................. 396 365 318 

Border Patrol agent ................................................ 628 306 274 

Air and Marine Interdiction agents ...................... 365 338 262 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. GAO–19–419T 

CBP enhanced its efforts to address retention challenges. However, staffing levels 

for law enforcement positions consistently remained below target levels. For example, CBP ended fiscal year 2017 more than 1,100 CBP officers below its target staffing level. CBP officials cited employees’ inability to relocate to more desirable locations as the primary retention challenge. CBP offered some relocation opportunities 

to law enforcement personnel and has pursued the use of financial incentives and 

other payments to supplement salaries, especially for those staffed to remote or 

hard-to-fill locations. However, retaining law enforcement officers in hard-to-fill locations continues to be challenging for CBP. GAO reported that CBP could be better 

positioned to understand its retention challenges and take appropriate action to address them by implementing a formal process for capturing information on all departing employees. In response, CBP officials reported taking steps to implement a 

CBP-wide exit survey and plan to analyze the results of the survey quarterly, beginning April 2019. 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s (CBP) efforts to recruit, hire, and retain law enforcement personnel. CBP is responsible for, among other things, securing U.S. borders to prevent 

acts of terrorism and stopping the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and 

other contraband across U.S. borders. To carry out these objectives, CBP employs 

nearly 45,000 law enforcement personnel across its three operational components— 

the Office of Field Operations (OFO), U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), and Air 

and Marine Operations (AMO)—at and between U.S. ports of entry, in the U.S. air 

and maritime environment, and at certain overseas locations.1 However, in recent 

years, CBP has not been able to attain its statutorily-established minimum staffing 

levels for its Border Patrol agent positions or its staffing goals for other law enforcement officer positions, citing high attrition rates in some locations, a protracted hiring process, and competition from other Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

agencies. Additionally, Executive Order 13767, issued in January 2017, called for 

CBP to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, subject to available appropriations. Consistent with this directive, Border Patrol is aiming to attain a staffing 

level of 26,370 Border Patrol agents (5,000 agents above the fiscal year 2016 statuVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
16 

2GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Progress and Challenges in Recruiting, Hiring, 

and Retaining Law Enforcement Personnel, GAO–18–487 (Washington, DC: June 27, 2018). 

torily established level). As of early February 2019, Border Patrol had 19,443 agents 

on-board, which is 6,927 agents below the target level, according to CBP. 

In June 2018, we reported on the extent to which CBP has developed and implemented an approach to recruit qualified law enforcement officers, revised its hiring 

process and made efforts to more efficiently hire law enforcement applicants, and 

developed and implemented an approach to retain law enforcement officers.2 This 

statement summarizes information from that report, as well as actions CBP has 

taken, as of February 2019, to address our recommendation from the report that 

CBP systematically collect and analyze data on departing law enforcement officers 

and use this information to inform retention efforts. To conduct the work for our 

June 2018 report, we analyzed CBP data on recruitment efforts, hiring process 

steps, and retention rates and retention incentives; reviewed documentation on CBP 

recruitment, hiring, and retention strategies; and interviewed officials from CBP 

and each of the three operational components. We also interviewed officials from the 

National Border Patrol Council union and National Treasury Employees Union— 

which represent CBP officers. For this statement, we also reviewed the November 

2017 contract CBP awarded to Accenture Federal Services, LLC, to help meet the 

staffing requirements outlined in Executive Order 13767 and interviewed CBP officials responsible for managing the contract. More detailed information on our objectives, scope, and methodology is contained in our June 2018 report. We also reviewed information on CBP actions to implement our prior recommendation. The 

work upon which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

CBP HAS TAKEN STEPS TO IMPROVE ITS RECRUITING AND HIRING PROCESS, BUT THE

PROCESS REMAINS LENGTHY

CBP Has Enhanced Its Recruitment Efforts and Applications for Law Enforcement 

Officer Positions Have Increased 

We reported in June 2018 that CBP increased its emphasis on recruitment by establishing a central recruitment office and increasing its participation in recruitment events. Specifically, CBP’s recruitment budget allocated by the centralized 

recruting office almost doubled, from approximately $6.4 million in fiscal year 2015 

to more than $12.7 million in fiscal year 2017. CBP also more than tripled the total 

number of recruitment events it participated in, from 905 events in fiscal year 2015 

to roughly 3,000 in both fiscal years 2016 and 2017. In addition, we reported that 

CBP had increased its use of recruitment incentives for OFO specifically from fiscal 

years 2015 through 2017 to help staff hard-to-fill locations. A recruitment incentive 

may be paid to a newly-appointed employee if an agency determines that a position 

is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of such an incentive. From fiscal years 

2015 through 2017, OFO increased the number of recruitment incentives it paid to 

CBP officers from 9 incentives in 2 locations at a total cost of about $77,600 to 446 

incentives across 18 locations at a cost of approximately $4.3 million. AMO and Border Patrol did not use recruitment incentives from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. 

As a result of its efforts, CBP also experienced an increase in the number of applications it received for law enforcement officer positions across all 3 operational components from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. For example, with the exception of fiscal year 2014, applications for Border Patrol agent positions increased every year, 

from roughly 27,000 applications in fiscal year 2013 to more than 91,000 applications in fiscal year 2017. Further, during the same period, applications for CBP officer positions increased from approximately 22,500 to more than 85,000, and applications for AMO’s law enforcement officer positions increased from about 2,000 to 

more than 5,800. 

CBP’s Hiring Process Has Improved, but the Process Remains Lengthy 

As we reported in June 2018, CBP’s law enforcement applicants undergo a 

lengthy and rigorous hiring process that includes nearly a dozen steps, including a 

background investigation, medical examination, physical fitness test, and polygraph 

examination. Several of these steps can be done concurrently for example, CBP can 

begin the background investigation while the candidate completes the physical fitVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
17 

3 AMO’s hiring process differs from those for Border Patrol agents and CBP officers regarding 

exams, certifications, and credentials required. 

ness test and medical examination process steps. Figure 1 depicts the hiring process 

for Border Patrol agent and CBP officer positions.3

From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, CBP generally improved its performance in 

two key metrics to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its hiring process for 

law enforcement officer positions. Specifically, CBP reduced its time-to-hire (the average number of days that elapsed between the closing date of a job announcement 

and an applicant’s entry-on-duty date) and increased the percentage of applicants 

that are hired. With regard to the time-to-hire metric, as shown in table 1, CBP’s 

time-to-hire decreased from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. 


h:\seals\11641.eps
18 

4The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 permitted the Commissioner 

of CBP to waive the polygraph examination requirement for any veteran applicant deemed suitable for employment who holds a current, active Top-Secret clearance and is able to access sensitive compartmented information; has a current single-scope background investigation; and was 

not granted any waivers to obtain the clearance. Pub. L. No. 114–328, div. A, tit. X, subtit. E, 

§ 1049, 130 Stat. 2000, 2396 (2016) (classified at 6 U.S.C. § 221 note). 

TABLE 1.—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION’S (CBP) TIME-TO-HIRE 

FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITIONS, FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2015– 

2017 

Law Enforcement Officer Position 

Days 

Fiscal 

Year 2015 

Fiscal 

Year 2016 

Fiscal 

Year 2017 

CBP officer .............................................................. 396 365 318 

Border Patrol agent ................................................ 628 306 274 

Air and Marine Interdiction agents ...................... 365 338 262 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. GAO–19–419T 

With regard to the percentage of applicants that are hired, CBP’s overall applicant pass rate metric calculates the estimated percentage of applicants who successfully complete the hiring process and enter on duty. CBP data indicate that overall 

applicant pass rates more than doubled for CBP officer and Border Patrol agent positions from fiscal years 2016 through 2017. CBP officials told us that higher overall 

applicant pass rates paired with recent increases in the number of applications received by the agency are starting to result in an increase in the number of law enforcement officers hired, as applicants complete CBP’s hiring process and officially 

enter on duty. As we reported in June 2018, CBP data indicated that more law enforcement officers entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 than entered 

on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2017. Specifically, the total number of CBP 

officers and Border Patrol agents that entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 

2018 increased by roughly 50 percent and 83 percent, respectively, when compared 

to the same period of the prior fiscal year. Further, the total number of AMO law 

enforcement officers that entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 more 

than doubled from the same period of fiscal year 2017. 

As we reported in June 2018, CBP has made efforts to improve its hiring process 

by revising certain aspects of the process, among other things. According to agency 

officials, these efforts to streamline and improve CBP’s overall hiring process have 

collectively resulted in the decreased time-to-hire and increased overall applicant 

pass rates discussed above. For example, in March 2017, CBP was granted the authority to waive the polygraph examination for veterans who meet certain criteria, 

including those who hold a current, active Top-Secret/Sensitive-Compartmented-Information clearance.4 Also, in April 2017, CBP received approval from the Office of 

Personnel Management to use direct-hire authority for law enforcement positions, 

which allows CBP to expedite the typical hiring process by eliminating competitive 

rating and ranking procedures and veterans’ preference. As of March 31, 2018, 77 

CBP officers and 107 Border Patrol agents had entered on duty through this authority. 

CBP has also made revisions to specific steps in its hiring process, including the 

application, entrance examination, and polygraph examination, among others. For 

example, in fiscal year 2016, CBP reordered its hiring process to place the entrance 

examination as the first step directly after an applicant submitted an application. 

Prior to this change, CBP conducted qualification reviews on applicants to ensure 

they met position requirements before inviting them to take the entrance exam. According to CBP officials, this updated process provided applicants with the opportunity to obtain a realistic preview of the job they were applying for earlier in the 

hiring process. These officials explained that this helps to ensure that only those 

applicants who are committed to completing the hiring process and entering on duty 

at CBP continue through the hiring pipeline, which may help to address high applicant discontinue rates (e.g., roughly half of all eligible applicants in fiscal year 2015 

did not take the exam). According to CBP officials, this revision also created efficiencies as the agency no longer has to spend time and resources on completing 

qualification reviews for applicants who either did not show up to take the exam 

or failed the exam itself. 

19 

CBP has also made several changes to its polygraph examination process step, 

which has consistently had the lowest pass rate of any step in its hiring process. 

For example, among other things, CBP has increased the number of polygraph examiners available to administer the test, according to agency officials, and was piloting a new type of polygraph exam. According to CBP officials, the new examination 

focuses on identifying serious crimes and is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that only 

qualified applicants are able to pass. Preliminary data from CBP’s pilot show that 

this new exam has demonstrated higher pass rates when compared with CBP’s traditional polygraph exam while also taking less time, on average, per test to complete. At the time of our review, it was too early to tell if these efforts will result 

in improvements to the polygraph examination step. Available CBP data indicate 

mixed results. Specifically, while the average duration to complete this step decreased for all law enforcement officer positions from fiscal years 2015 through 

2017, pass rates also declined slightly over this same period. For example, for Border Patrol agents, the pass rate declined from 28 to 26 percent, while for CBP officers, it declined from 32 to 25 percent. 

While CBP had reduced its time-to-hire and made efforts to improve its hiring 

process for law enforcement officers, CBP officials noted that the hiring process remained lengthy, which directly affected the agency’s ability to recruit and hire for 

law enforcement positions. CBP officials also stated that their ability to further improve CBP’s time-to-hire and increase law enforcement hires was affected by hiring 

process steps that can be challenging and time-consuming for applicants to complete, as well as CBP’s reliance on applicants to promptly complete certain aspects 

of the process. In fiscal year 2017, it took an average of 274 days for Border Patrol 

agent applicants and 318 days for CBP officer applicants to complete all hiring steps 

and enter on duty. According to a leading practice in hiring we identified for such 

positions, agencies should ensure that the hiring process is not protracted or onerous for applicants. According to CBP officials, the agency’s multi-step hiring process 

for its law enforcement officer positions was intentionally rigorous and involves extensive applicant screening to ensure that only qualified candidates meet the technical, physical, and suitability requirements for employment at CBP. Even so, CBP 

officials across several components told us that the agency’s time-to-hire was too 

long and directly affected the component’s ability to recruit and hire for law enforcement positions. For example, OFO officials told us that the longer the hiring process 

takes to complete, the more likely it was that an applicant will drop out. Further, 

qualified applicants may also decide to apply for employment at a competing law 

enforcement agency that may have a less rigorous process than CBP’s, according to 

CBP officials. 

One factor that affects CBP’s ability to efficiently process and on-board law enforcement officers are specific hiring process steps that are time-consuming and 

challenging for candidates to complete. For example, CBP officials cited the polygraph examination as a significant bottleneck within CBP’s hiring process. In addition to having the lowest pass rate of any step in CBP’s process, the polygraph examination also took CBP officer and Border Patrol agent applicants, on average, the 

longest amount of time to complete in fiscal year 2017—74 days and 94 days, respectively. Further, CBP officials told us that these already lengthy time frames 

may increase further because of the growing number of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement positions. In addition, on average, it took CBP law enforcement officer applicants across all 3 components 55 days or more to complete the medical examination and more than 60 days to complete the background investigation. 

CBP’s Accenture Contract Is Intended to Further Enhance CBP’s Recruitment and 

Hiring Efforts 

In November 2017, CBP hired a contractor—Accenture Federal Services, LLC— 

to help the agency recruit and hire the 5,000 Border Patrol agents called for in Executive Order 13767, as well as an additional 2,000 CBP officers and 500 AMO personnel. Specifically, at the time of our June 2018 report, the contract had a total 

potential period of 5 years at a not-to-exceed value of $297 million. The contract included a base year and 4 1-year option periods, which CBP may exercise at its discretion for a total potential period of 5 years. Under this performance-based contract, Accenture is responsible for enhancing CBP’s recruitment efforts and managing the hiring process for those applicants it recruits. 

We reported that the Accenture contract is intended to enhance CBP’s recruitment efforts by improving its marketing strategy and utilizing new ways to capture 

and analyze data to better inform recruitment efforts, according to CBP officials. To 

meet target staffing levels, CBP expected that the contractor would augment CBP’s 

current hiring infrastructure while pursuing new and innovative hiring initiatives. 

Specifically, the contractor is responsible for implementing the same hiring process 

20 

5OFO and AMO develop annual authorized staffing level targets for law enforcement officer 

positions based on operational needs and available funding. Border Patrol’s authorized staffing 

levels through fiscal year 2016 represent statutorily established workforce floors while the fiscal 

year 2017 authorized staffing level for Border Patrol agents represents the office-wide goal of 

having 26,370 Border Patrol agents, which includes the 5,000 additional agents Executive Order 

13767 directs CBP to hire and on-board. 

steps and ensuring that all applicants recruited by Accenture meet CBP’s standards. 

CBP officials also told us that Accenture has the flexibility to pursue novel hiring 

tactics and pilot initiatives that CBP may not have considered or been able to undertake. For example, Accenture plans to pilot innovative ways to reduce the timeto-hire, including by streamlining steps in the hiring process, which could help to 

improve CBP’s overall process and generate increased hires for law enforcement positions. At the time of our June 2018 report, some key issues were still being negotiated between CBP and the contractor. For example, while CBP officials told us 

that the main metric used to assess Accenture’s effectiveness will be the total number of hires the contractor produces, they were still working to finalize other key 

metrics for evaluating the contractor’s effectiveness as well as an oversight plan to 

ensure the contractor operates according to agency requirements. As a result, we reported that it was too early to determine whether these initiatives would help increase the number and quality of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement officer positions. We also reported that it was too early to evaluate whether the contractor 

would be able to efficiently and effectively provide the surge hiring capacity CBP 

needs to achieve its staffing goals. 

CBP HAS ENHANCED ITS RETENTION EFFORTS, BUT DOES NOT SYSTEMATICALLY COLLECT

AND ANALYZE DATA ON DEPARTING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

Retaining Law Enforcement Officers in Hard-to-Fill Locations Has Been Challenging 

for CBP 

In June 2018, we reported that CBP’s annual rates of attrition were relatively 

low, but CBP faced challenges retaining law enforcement officers in hard-to-fill locations. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, OFO’s annual attrition rates for the 

CBP officer position were consistent at about 3 percent, while rates for Border Patrol agent and AMO’s Marine Interdiction agent positions were below 5 percent in 

4 out of the 5 fiscal years we reviewed. When we compared CBP’s annual attrition 

rates for these positions to those of other selected law enforcement agencies, we 

found that CBP’s attrition rates were similar to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) annual attrition rates for its law enforcement positions and generally lower than those of the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Annual attrition rates for AMO’s aviation positions were higher, ranging from 5.0 percent to 9.2 percent for the Air Interdiction agent position and 7.8 percent to 11.1 

percent for the Aviation Enforcement agent position. Even so, fiscal years 2015 

through 2017, attrition rates for these positions have generally remained lower than 

those of the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons. 

In addition, from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s ability to hire more law 

enforcement officers than it lost varied across positions. Specifically, CBP consistently hired more CBP officers and Aviation Enforcement agents than it lost. Further, while CBP generally maintained its staffing levels for Marine Interdiction 

agents, the agency consistently lost more Border Patrol agents and Air Interdiction 

agents than it hired. Even so, on-board staffing levels for all 5 of CBP’s law enforcement officer positions have consistently remained below authorized staffing levels.5

CBP has acknowledged that improving its retention of qualified law enforcement 

personnel is critical in addressing staffing shortfalls, but CBP officials identified difficulties in retaining key law enforcement staff as a result of geographically remote 

and hard-to-fill duty locations. CBP officials across all three operational components 

cited location—and specifically employees’ inability to relocate to posts in more desirable locations—as a primary challenge facing the agency in retaining qualified 

personnel. 

Border Patrol officials explained that duty stations in certain remote locations 

present retention challenges due to quality-of-life factors. For example, the officials 

told us that agents may not want to live with their families in an area without a 

hospital, with low-performing schools, or with relatively long commutes from their 

homes to their duty station. Border Patrol’s difficulty in retaining law enforcement 

staff in such locations is exacerbated by competition with other Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement organizations for qualified personnel. According to Border Patrol officials, other agencies are often able to offer more desirable duty locations— 

such as major cities—and, in some cases, higher compensation. 

21 

CBP data indicate that Border Patrol agents consistently leave the component for 

employment with other law enforcement agencies, including OFO as well as other 

DHS components such as ICE. For example, while retirements accounted for more 

than half of annual CBP officer losses from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, they accounted for less than a quarter of annual Border Patrol agent losses, indicating that 

the majority of these agents are not retiring but are generally leaving to pursue 

other employment. Further, according to CBP data, the number of Border Patrol 

agents departing for employment at other Federal agencies increased steadily, from 

75 agents in fiscal year 2013 to 348 agents in fiscal year 2017—or nearly 40 percent 

of all Border Patrol agent losses in that fiscal year. Border Patrol officials told us, 

for example, that working a standard day shift at ICE in a controlled indoor environment located in a major metropolitan area for similar or even lower salaries presents an attractive career alternative for Border Patrol agents who often work night 

shifts in extreme weather in geographically remote locations. The president of the 

National Border Patrol Council also cited this challenge, stating that unless Border 

Patrol agents have a strong incentive to remain in remote, undesirable locations— 

such as higher compensation when compared with other law enforcement agencies— 

they are likely to leave the agency for similar positions located in more desirable 

locations. 

While OFO officials told us the component did not face an across-the-board challenge in retaining CBP officers, they have had difficulty retaining officers in certain 

hard-to-fill locations that may be geographically remote or unattractive for families, 

such as Nogales, Arizona, and San Ysidro, California. As a result, CBP officer staffing levels in these locations have consistently remained below authorized targets. 

AMO has also had difficulty retaining its law enforcement personnel—and particularly its Air Interdiction agent staff—in hard-to-fill locations, such as Aguadilla, 

Puerto Rico, and Laredo, Texas. However, given the unique qualifications and competencies required for the Air Interdiction agent position, AMO does not compete 

with other law enforcement organizations. Instead, AMO officials told us they compete with the commercial airline industry for qualified pilots. Specifically, they stated that this competition is exacerbated by a Nation-wide shortage of pilots. In addition, AMO officials explained that there is a perception among applicants that commercial airlines are able to offer pilots more desirable locations and higher compensation. However, they told us that AMO generally provided pilots with higher 

starting salaries than many regional airlines as well as most career options available to helicopter pilots. 

CBP Has Taken Steps to Address Retention Challenges 

All three CBP operational components have taken steps to retain qualified law 

enforcement personnel by offering opportunities for employees to relocate to more 

desirable locations and pursuing the use of financial incentives, special salary rates, 

and other payments and allowances. 

Relocation opportunities.—Border Patrol, OFO, and AMO have formal programs 

that provide law enforcement officers with opportunities to relocate. For example, 

in fiscal year 2017, Border Patrol implemented its Operational Mobility Program 

and received initial funding to relocate about 500 Border Patrol agents to new locations based on the component’s staffing needs. According to Border Patrol officials, 

retaining current employees is a top focus for leadership at the component and this 

program provides Border Patrol agents with opportunities for a paid relocation to 

a more desirable location at a lower cost to CBP than an official permanent change 

of station transfer. As of April 2018, Border Patrol officials told us that 322 Border 

Patrol agents had accepted reassignment opportunities through the program and 

the component hoped to continue receiving funding to provide these opportunities. 

Financial Incentives and Other Payments and Allowances.—CBP’s three operational components have also taken steps to supplement employees’ salaries through 

the use of human capital flexibilities—such as retention and relocation incentives 

and special salary rates—as well as other payments and allowances. CBP’s goal in 

pursuing these human capital flexibilities is to retain current employees—especially 

in remote or hard-to-fill locations—who are likely to internally relocate within CBP 

to more desirable duty locations or depart the agency for similar positions at other 

law enforcement organizations or commercial airlines. 

However, we found that from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s use of such 

financial incentives and other payments was limited, as the agency paid a total of 

4 retention incentives and 13 relocation incentives, and implemented one special salary rate for all positions during this 5-year period. From fiscal years 2013 through 

2017, Border Patrol did not offer retention incentives to agents and paid two relocation incentives to transfer Border Patrol agents to Artesia, New Mexico, and Washington, DC, at a cost of roughly $78,000. However, in fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol 

22 

6GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO–14–704G (Washington, DC: September 2014). 

increased its use of relocation incentives to facilitate the transfer of agents to duty 

stations along the Southwest Border that are less desirable due to the remoteness 

of the location and lack of basic amenities and infrastructure. Specifically, as of 

April 2018, 67 Border Patrol agents had received such incentives to relocate to duty 

stations in Ajo, Arizona; Calexico, California; and Big Bend, Texas; among others. 

While Border Patrol did not offer retention incentives during our review period, 

it submitted a formal request to CBP leadership in February 2018 for a 10 percent 

across-the-board retention incentive for all Border Patrol agents at the GS–13 level 

and below, which represents the majority of the component’s front-line workforce. 

According to Border Patrol documentation, these incentives, if implemented, could 

help reduce Border Patrol’s attrition rate—which has consistently outpaced its hiring rate—by helping retain agents who may have otherwise left Border Patrol for 

similar positions in OFO, ICE, or other law enforcement agencies. According to CBP 

officials, as of April 2018, CBP leadership was evaluating Border Patrol’s group retention incentive request, including the costs associated with implementing this 10 

percent across-the-board incentive. In addition, as the incentive would benefit Border Patrol agents in all of the component’s duty locations, the extent to which this 

effort would be effective in targeting agent attrition in the remote locations that represent CBP’s largest staffing challenges remains to be seen. Border Patrol approved 

the 10 percent retention incentive and is awaiting funding for implementation, according to officials. 

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, OFO paid a total of 4 retention incentives 

at a cost of $149,000 to retain CBP officers in Tucson, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; 

Carbury, North Dakota; and Laredo, Texas. Further, OFO paid 7 relocation incentives at a cost of approximately $160,000 to relocate personnel to the hard-to-fill 

ports of Alcan and Nome, Alaska; Coburn Grove, Maine; and Detroit, Michigan. One 

OFO official told us OFO did not regularly use these incentives because its relatively low annual attrition rates make it difficult to propose a persuasive business 

case to CBP leadership that such incentives are necessary. Further, another OFO 

official explained that OFO’s strategy is focused on using recruitment incentives to 

staff hard-to-fill locations with new employees. 

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, AMO did not offer retention incentives to 

law enforcement personnel and paid a total of 4 relocation incentives to transfer 3 

Air Interdiction agents and one Marine Interdiction agent to Puerto Rico at a cost 

of approximately $84,000. However, AMO has taken steps to pursue additional 

human capital flexibilities to address its difficulty in retaining Air Interdiction 

agents, including a group retention incentive and a special salary rate. 

CBP Does Not Have a Systematic Process to Capture and Analyze Data on Departing 

Law Enforcement Officers 

In June 2018, we reported that CBP does not have a systematic process for capturing and analyzing information on law enforcement officers who are leaving, such 

as an exit interview or survey. As a result, the agency does not have important information it could use to help inform future retention efforts. Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government states that management should obtain relevant 

data from reliable sources and process these data into quality information to make 

informed decisions in achieving key objectives.6 Taking steps to ensure that the 

agency’s operational components are systematically collecting and analyzing complete and accurate information on all departing law enforcement officers—including 

the factors that influenced their decision to separate—would better position CBP to 

understand its retention challenges and take appropriate action to address them. 

We recommended that CBP should ensure that its operational components systematically collect and analyze data on departing law enforcement officers and use this 

information to inform retention efforts. CBP agreed with the recommendation. CBP 

officials reported in February 2019 that they developed and implemented a CBPwide exit survey in August 2018 and have taken steps to promote the survey and 

encourage exiting CBP employees to fill it out. The officials also noted that they 

plan to analyze the survey results on a quarterly basis starting in April 2019. These 

actions, if fully implemented, should address the intent of our recommendation. 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to 

any questions you or the Members of the committee may have. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you for your testimony. 

23 

I now recognize Chief Karisch to summarize his statement for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RODOLFO KARISCH, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, 

RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. BORDER PATROL 

Mr. KARISCH. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the chance 

to appear before you today. 

I have more than 30 years of Border Patrol experience and currently serve as chief patrol agent of the Rio Grande Valley Sector. 

Prior to this assignment I served as the chief patrol agent of the 

Tucson Sector. Over the past several years both of these sectors 

have remained some of the busiest in the Nation. 

I want to provide some perspective on the challenges facing our 

men and women at the Southwest Border. Though I cannot speak 

for all of the components of Customs and Border Protection, I can 

provide a first-hand account of the complex border security environment and ask for your assistance in helping our front-line men 

and women. 

In our line of work Border Patrol agents rarely know exactly who 

or what they will encounter. In a single day an agent may arrest 

a violent felon, encounter a large group of families and children, or 

rescue a drowning migrant sent in the river by smugglers. Of those 

we encounter we don’t know what condition they are in or what 

their intentions may be when they get here. 

Less than 2 weeks ago agents working near Roma, Texas, arrested a Salvadoran man after he entered the United States illegally. Record checks revealed him as an MS–13 gang member with 

extensive criminal history in the State of New York who was previously deported. 

In the Rio Grande Valley sector we apprehend nearly a thousand 

people between the ports of entry each day. In fact, just last week 

our agents apprehended more than 7,000 people, roughly the same 

size as the so-called caravans that get much attention. 

The majority of the apprehensions are family units and unaccompanied children from Central America, and many travel in large 

groups of 100 or more. In addition to the high volume of Central 

Americans, we encounter people from all over the world, many of 

whom don’t want to be caught. In my sector alone we have encountered aliens from 40 different countries, including Bangladesh, Turkey, Romania, and China. 

People are traveling thousands of miles across hemispheres to attempt to illegally enter the United States using the same pathways 

as Central Americans. 

Contrast this incoming tide of migrants with our limited resources and infrastructure at the Southwest Border, particularly in 

the Rio Grande Valley and Tucson Sectors. For example, in the 

Tucson Sector agents encounter large groups in extremely remote 

locations that are 2 or 3 hours’ drive from the point of apprehension to a Border Patrol facility. We don’t have vehicles to transport 

groups of large sizes, so agents are forced to make several trips at 

5 or 6 hours in that round trip. 

24 

This is further complicated by access limitations due to geography and roads. Simply put, traveling along the Southwest Border 

is not always a matter of point A to point B, as there is rugged terrain and lack of roads hinder our movements. More and more we 

spend our limited manpower on transport, processing, and hospital 

watch for aliens with increasing medical needs. Meanwhile, our law 

enforcement responsibilities and the safety of our agents suffer. 

During the 35-day Government shutdown, working without pay, 

Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector apprehended 

more than 17,000 illegal aliens, seized more than 15,000 pounds of 

marijuana and nearly 900 pounds of cocaine. They also located and 

took down 19 stash houses. 

This clearly demonstrates the commitment of our men and 

women to the mission and to upholding the laws of the United 

States. 

We ask a lot of our agents, and we must support them. They live 

and work in some of the most remote areas of the United States. 

They work in the heat of the desert and the cold of the Northern 

Border. They track criminal aliens and drug smugglers through 

harsh conditions and make multiple arrests, at times often alone 

with the nearest agent miles away. 

Despite the great work of our dedicated men and women, without 

changes to existing laws and policies we will continue to see an unprecedented influx of families and children. We know that smuggling organizations take advantage of the opportunity to move 

drugs and other contraband while our agents are occupied with the 

humanitarian influx. We need to return our agents to the front line 

to ensure the safety and security of our border. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I look 

forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes 

to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for questions. 

I want to keep this focus here on retention and recruitment. I 

think hiring right now is—one of the challenges that I face sometimes is this is such a complex issue, and every time you dive in 

you see hot spots everywhere, but this is a key challenge that I 

think we can all gain a lot from focusing on. 

So I really appreciate Ms. Gambler’s discussion of the GAO report that noted that the average number of days it takes to hire 

CBP law enforcement positions has come down over the past 3 

years. But the CBP’s hiring process remains lengthy. What do you 

view is the biggest contributor to CBP’s lengthy time-to-hire rates? 

Ms. GAMBLER. I think the steps in the hiring process that take 

the most time include the polygraph, the medical examination, and 

a few other steps. So those are the ones that tend to take the longest amount of time. 

Also, the hiring process does rely on applicants to complete certain steps in the process, and as we were doing our work we did 

hear from CBP that that could be a challenge, as well. 

Mr. Huffman mentioned their applicant care pilot, which I think 

is designed in part to help applicants walk through the process and 

maybe complete some of those steps a little bit more timely. CerVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
25 

tainly, Mr. Huffman could speak to that, as well. But there are certain steps that take longer, and there is also some reliance on applicants to complete parts of the process that they are responsible 

for. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Are there any other improvements that you 

would suggest while still using the risk-based approach? 

Ms. GAMBLER. So while we did not make specific recommendations in this regard to CBP, it is a best practice for any agency to 

regularly assess their hiring process. So certainly CBP could continue to study that process, as well as its recruitment and retention 

processes, as well, to look at whether or not there are some additional changes that they could make to the steps themselves, the 

ordering of the steps. 

When it comes to recruitment and retention, they might also continue to look at the use of incentives which, at least for CBP officers, we were told by CBP has been fairly effective. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Mr. Huffman, my district or the district that 

I serve is home to three ports of entry, Columbus, Antelope Wells, 

and Santa Teresa. Do these ports of entry, do you know if they 

have the resources and staff that they need? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you for the question. 

For the ports of entry in those particular areas I am not familiar 

with their exact staffing numbers now. I know that the Office of 

Field Operations in general has had a lot of successes, probably 

more so than the other components in CBP at getting officers to 

these more remote areas based on using some of the incentives that 

we have talked about before. 

As far as the specific staffing levels at those ports of entry, I can 

get back to you with the information, but I don’t know it off the 

top of my head. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. You just mentioned that there are places 

where OFO incentives have been perhaps deployed more effectively 

than other places. What do you think is the cause for that difference? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OFO kind-of took an innovative approach over the 

last couple years. They changed the way they were recruiting and 

hiring, and it had some positive effects, and I think there are some 

good lessons to be learned for the organization as a whole. But they 

started being, as we talked about, some more targeted hiring to 

some specific areas, and they were hiring for specific ports of entry, 

understanding what they were moving to. 

So once they kind-of focused on those particular areas, offered incentives to those areas, and they knew what they were going to get 

into and what they were going to get, that was very helpful. For 

example, when they were targeting the Arizona area, they developed a specific brochure that explained the community well to 

them. 

I think those things have borne out to be very successful, and I 

think there are lessons to learn for the agency as a whole to copy 

that pattern in different components, as well. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. For any of you, do you have any suggestions 

for ensuring that more rural areas are appropriately staffed? 

Ms. GAMBLER. That has been a key challenge; that is one of the 

key challenges that we highlighted in our report. 

26 

The one example that we were able to see in our report was the 

use of some of those financial incentives, whether they were recruitment or retention bonuses or incentives. 

So those were some of the examples that we saw in terms of 

CBP’s current practices to try to either recruit for or retain law enforcement officers in those more remote locations. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

To set a good example, I will yield my time now. I now recognize 

the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, 

for questions. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Thank you all for being here again. 

I want to begin with the polygraph. Mr. Karisch, I will start with 

you. Actually, I will just let you run with that. 

I would like to hear from all of you on the polygraph issue. Tell 

me about the pilot program that came about, how it has been improved upon, but what more we can do. 

I did mention a bill that we are proposing soon which would 

make it easier to hire law enforcement, Federal law enforcement, 

and military with previous clearances. So can you expound upon 

how that would affect the process? 

Mr. KARISCH. Yes, sir. 

So back in 2017 I had the opportunity to serve up here in the 

District of Columbia as the acting assistant commissioner for the 

Office of Professional Responsibility, who, of course, had oversight 

of the polygraph program. At that point in time we looked at some 

different formats that we could apply. 

All Federal agencies who send polygraph examiners to the National Center for Credibility Assessment, they all get their training 

in the same place. We were looking for something that could help 

us in that process. At that time CBP’s past record was at about 25 

percent. That is about the number of people that were passing the 

polygraph. 

In 2017 we started approaching—in 2018, in conjunction with 

the NCCA, they were able to finally get that approved and piloted. 

That was the test for espionage, sabotage, and corruption. That increased our actual success in the polygraph exams to 37 percent. 

So there was definitely an increase in efficiency with the polygraph because what it did is it removed some of the redundancies 

in the process, reduced some of the time of the actual test, but still 

captured all of the things that LEPET did, which was traditionally 

the test that was given to all law enforcement agencies when they 

are actually hiring personnel. It is a very standardized test, but 

TES–C has worked tremendously well for the organization. 

But we are also looking for additional opportunities for hiring 

flexibilities, and that is why I am very supportive of the bill for the 

waivers, which would authorize law enforcement officers in the 

State and local level who have taken a polygraph in the last 10 

years, Federal law enforcement agents who are wanting to transfer 

into the organization, and/or military members who have a Top Secret, Secret, or SCI clearance, is to come to our organization as long 

as they are in good standing, have not had any misconduct, criminal acts. So, I mean, definitely something that we support, sir. 

27 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me just, for everybody, as well, would you 

agree a polygraph is incapable of predicting behavior, right? Which 

is really the whole point of using it to screen, is to be able to predict behavior. Would you agree that is impossible for a polygraph 

to do? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes, I would agree that a polygraph does not predict behavior. That is correct. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. OK. In my limited time I want to get to the issue 

of mobility. Mr. Huffman, I will start with you on that. 

I realize that is a big issue with retention. We previously talked 

about what we have done already and what more can be done to 

ensure that our agents have the option of going to the places they 

want to go. I will let you take it from there. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Yes, that is speaking specifically about Border Patrol for now, 

but I think it applies a little bit across the board, and I think it 

gets back to a little bit of the challenges with the rural area that 

the Chairwoman mentioned earlier. 

Border Patrol did a, trying to address retention interests, they 

did a human capital study years ago and determined that the lack 

of mobility was a big challenge. The Border Patrol agents loved the 

job, they loved what they were doing, but living in these remote 

areas they needed to see an end, they needed to see someplace out, 

and for a long time there just wasn’t one. We didn’t have the ability to offer those opportunities. 

So a couple years ago the Border Patrol implemented an operation mobility program that does offer that now, and it is based on 

a seniority-based, it is negotiated with the union, seniority-based 

tier that allows them the opportunity to move to areas more to 

their liking. So if you say you start off in Presidio, Texas, or in Ajo, 

Arizona, you the job, you love what you are doing, the spouse may 

not love the job, the spouse may not love what you are doing or 

the conditions you are living in, at least you have that hope, that 

opportunity a few years down the road to move to a more desirable 

location. 

We think that is going to help us get after some of our retention 

issues, as well. We just started that last year, so it is kind-of early 

to tell exactly how effective it is going to be yet. But the information so far is that it has been received very positively by the work 

force and gives that hope, that opportunity to go somewhere else 

and still serve as a U.S. Border Patrol agent. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. I yield. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions they 

may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our committee 

rules, I will recognize Members who were present at the start of 

the hearing based on seniority on the committee, alternating between Majority and Minority. Those Members coming in later will 

be recognized in the order of their arrival. 

The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

28 

I just would ask you briefly, do you have any statistics on the 

demographics of the work force that might reflect diversity or lack 

thereof? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I don’t necessarily have those statistics with me 

at this moment, although the Customs and Border Protection 

strives hard to have a diverse work force. Not knowing the numbers exactly, I know the Border Patrol is probably one of the largest Federal law enforcement organizations that the majority of the 

employees are minority employees. I don’t know if that translates 

across CBP as a whole, but it is a significant part of the work force. 

I can get those specific statistics for you, though, and get back with 

you on those. 

Ms. TITUS. That would be great. I would be curious to know 

about the number of veterans, too, and what you do specifically to 

reach out to hire veterans, because we often hear they come back 

and don’t have a way to use the skills that they learned on the 

front back at home. So this seems like it might be a place where 

they would be—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am glad you asked that question, because that 

is an area that we are very proud of our efforts in that area. 

Of the CBP work force overall, 30 percent are veterans, and we 

do some very specific targeted hiring from the veteran parts. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2019, CBP hired over 1,000 

veterans through the Veterans’ Readjustment Act, the VRA. Similarly, we hired over 450 veterans through the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act. CBP won the Monster.com for best companies for veterans. There was a point I think last February when 

that was announced. 

So we reach out to the veteran organizations. We work with the 

different military bases through their TAP system, the Transition—I forget exactly what that means—but to target veterans, and 

we think that is a great source for our work force. Those are the 

type of folks that transition to the type of work we do quite well. 

So we aggressively get after veteran hires. We always can do 

more, I am sure, and we look for opportunities to do that. But that 

is a great place for us to go, and we exploit that as much as possible. 

Ms. TITUS. I am glad to hear that. 

I represent Las Vegas and McCarran Airport, and we are trying 

very hard to attract additional international flights, as I know 

other airports are. So we have had a problem, though, because as 

we get new air service, Customs and Border Protection says that 

they don’t have enough staff available, or they can only work after 

10 o’clock, which is their schedule. Or places like Reno who want 

to have seasonal employees to bring international travelers say 

during the ski season there is not enough flexibility there to set up 

that kind of program. 

Can you talk to us about how we can make you more flexible so 

you could be more accommodating and you wouldn’t stop the development of international tourism but rather help us to promote it? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes, ma’am, I appreciate your question. 

I know that the Office of Field Operations has a staffing model 

they use to help try to establish requirements and predict future 

requirements in those processes. 

29 

As far as the specifics of that airport I am not as familiar as I 

probably should be kind-of just taking over this role, but I will be 

glad to look into that and get back with you on that. I know that 

currently the staffing at that airport is at 93 percent, so they are 

staffed up for what they think they need or almost there. 

If that needs to be more, again, that is a discussion we can have 

with the Office of Field Operations leadership and see what that 

is and how that fits into the overall strategy and staffing plans. 

Ms. TITUS. If you can help me with that I would appreciate it. 

It is not always more, it is how you use what you have so that you 

make it more accommodating to the kind of schedules, because 

international flights come in maybe in the middle of the night to 

Las Vegas. You know, we operate around the clock there, so we 

need that kind of flexibility. 

One other thing, though, that concerns me is that some of the 

members from that work force have been taken away for temporary 

duty assignments at the border. They come back and say there is 

not really an emergency at the border, we could have been here 

helping where we belong. 

Can you address that policy, how you make that decision, and 

why it is a good use of our manpower? 

Mr. KARISCH. Well, I will take that question. 

Being down on the border in places like Nogales where I was 

previously and even in my current assignment out in RGV, I recognized that OFO actually has a huge job to do with legal trade and 

travel, a lot of commercial vehicles that are coming into the country. They deal with inadmissible aliens. They deal with a lot of 

hard drugs. Now they are also having to deal with the asylum folks 

that are coming in. 

So it is a draw on manpower for them because they have all of 

their other functions that they still have to perform, so they have 

to augment it with resources from other parts of the country. I 

know that is never popular when they have to reach into other 

places in the United States to bring down people, but it is a requirement based on the flow of what we are getting down there 

and in addition to the job that they already have to perform on the 

Southwest Border. 

Ms. TITUS. It is unfortunate. I hope we find some other way to 

deal with it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Gentlemen, madam, thank you for being here today. 

Mr. Huffman, congratulations. You stated earlier it is the first 

time in 6 years that you have managed to hire more personnel 

than you have lost through attrition. This is to be attributed to 

your focus and your devotion, sir, and that of your people, streamlined hiring process. I am particularly uplifted to hear about the 

mobility program. These men and women work in very remote 

areas. That is tough. That is a tough gig. I have known some of 

those men and women, and it can be difficult on a family. 

30 

Chief Karisch, today we have heard about some of the challenges 

facing your mission, including staffing and funding shortages. 

There are serious problems with the recruitment, hiring, and retention of qualified agents. We all concur. I look forward to looking 

into those further. 

Today I would like to ask you a little bit about morale. I have 

talked to agents and officers in the field, and they have told me 

just man-to-man, heart-to-heart, cop-to-cop, it is demoralizing to 

them to hear politicians in the District of Columbia and elsewhere 

attack their mission or condemn their mission to protect and serve 

this country by securing our border and the sovereignty of our border and enforcing our immigration laws. 

What is troubling to me are the politicians who would blame the 

patriots who put their lives on the line every day to serve the country and enforce the law, as opposed to addressing the laws themselves. 

Wouldn’t you say that elected officials should take action through 

the legislative process and change the laws, instead of disparaging 

the men and women responsible for enforcing the laws? 

Mr. KARISCH. So, sir, I will start off by saying that we have a 

very committed work force out there. I mean, I have seen that from 

so many fronts in over 30 years in this organization. 

But I will even point you to something specific. During the recent 

Government shutdown that we had, I mean, we had people that 

stepped up, no massive sick-outs in the Border Patrol, people who 

stepped up, recognized the importance of what they did to their 

communities, to their countries in serving. I saw over and over 

again where our men and women are committed. 

Is it frustrating for them to hear? Absolutely. But we are also 

professionals, we know that we have a job to do, and we try to stay 

out of the political fray sometimes. But at the end of the day recognize that those men and women out there are very dedicated, they 

make me very proud every day in what they do out there in helping secure this country for the good of everyone in this room. 

Mr. HIGGINS. They should be recognized as the professionals that 

they are. So thank you for your service and for that clarification. 

Some of these men and women that I have talked to and wear 

uniforms like yours I would say represent some of the finest examples of American love and compassion and patriotism that I have 

ever met. So they should be recognized, and they should be acknowledged. We as elected officials should just take a deep breath. 

If the laws need to be changed, Madam Chairwoman, let us 

change them. But in the mean time let us support the law enforcement professionals that are tasked with upholding those laws. 

Chief Karisch, regarding funding, some of my colleagues supported zeroed-out funding for Border Patrol agents in the fiscal 

year 2019 appropriations bill, yet we are discussing staffing and 

funding shortages. Could you use more agents in the RGV Sector? 

Mr. KARISCH. Yes, sir, I think we can use them across the entire 

Southwest Border. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I agree. Let me ask you—I am on limited time 

here—how are staffing shortages affecting the agents’ work-life balance? This relates back to retention. You know, when you are 

asked to work more and do more with less this affects the workVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
31 

life balance. Can you discuss in our remaining time how that impacts retention for your very professional agents? 

Mr. KARISCH. Well, I mean, our work force is getting exhausted. 

As I talked about previously, 7,000 apprehensions last week. So 

you can imagine that I am taking 20 percent of my work force in 

the Rio Grande Valley Sector right now, assigning them to processing, to transportation, to hospital watch, and we haven’t even 

gotten into the summer season. We will all be asked to do more on 

the humanitarian front on the rescues. 

So, I mean, it depletes the work force of what we are supposed 

to be doing. But at the end of the day it is also exhausting for our 

personnel in operating at a high tempo, and that is what we are 

operating under right now, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you for that clarification again. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, if we have a second round of questions, 

I have a question for—— 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. I apologize. The gentleman is out of time. 

Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for being here. I appreciate your time. 

As a young marine second lieutenant my first assignment was 

actually as part of Joint Task Force Six, where I served along the 

U.S.-Mexican border side-by-side with Border Patrol members 

interdicting drugs, and certainly watched a lot in that assignment 

and that experience. 

Something that I did not see in that time as a young second lieutenant but I have heard about is that Border Patrol agents are 

finding children who are coming across with the same adults over 

and over and over again. So you have adults it appears to be taking 

advantage of the unaccompanied minor provisions we have who are 

then in turn asking for sanctuary. The children are then being trafficked back into Mexico to come with another adult as an unaccompanied minor again and again and again. 

This is obviously tragic. It is wrong. Can you speak to that? 

Mr. KARISCH. Yes, sir. I don’t have any hard statistics from that, 

but in talking to my people in both locations we know that that 

happens. We know that there are people right now that are exploiting the current process in knowing that because of the Flores settlement that ICE or HHS can’t detain family units with children 

for more than 20 days. 

So the fact is we have seen children come back through with different groups claiming to be their relatives. So that is a dynamic 

that is occurring on the border. But we would definitely like to get 

something back on the record for you from the agency. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Are you able to document the identities of these 

children? Can you get fingerprints? Can you do some kind of biometric way to say, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute, you were here previously, 

a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, with somebody else, you were 

saying you were a different name, you are not’’? Are you able to 

get biometric information so you can find these people a second 

time? 

32 

Mr. KARISCH. Unfortunately, we can’t fingerprint children under 

14. But, I mean, we work very closely with consular officials from 

different countries. Many times the individuals that we encounter 

have no documentation whatsoever, so we are having to rely on 

word of mouth of who they are telling us they are. 

But we have seen several situations out there where people that 

are claiming to be relatives to children and even other families are 

not, in fact, those people. 

So it is that deep dive, it is the interviews that we have to do, 

but it is very difficult because we cannot fingerprint under 14. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So for those of us that are against human trafficking, that are upset by the idea of children being exploited in 

this way, which is just really terrible, what is preventing you from 

gathering the biometric information to stop this kind of horrific 

human trafficking? 

Mr. KARISCH. I mean, we gather as much information as we can, 

but because of the law we cannot fingerprint children. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So you are statutorily prohibited from gathering 

this biometric information? 

Mr. KARISCH. Yes. 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. So there is a flaw in the law, which then 

human smugglers are exploiting for the purpose of human trafficking. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. KARISCH. I think that they know exactly what our gaps are 

in a lot of areas, whether it is on the enforcement or whether it 

is on the legal side of what they do. We are seeing the use of children to exploit our current system of law with immigrations here 

in the United States. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So if we were to change that law you then would 

be able to actually gather the biometric information to then stop 

children being exploited by these smugglers, by these human smugglers, to then get people across the border? 

Mr. KARISCH. Well, don’t get me wrong, we gather information 

other than actually fingerprinting them, we do gather other information that will, of course, help us in the investigation of when we 

see that. I mean, we have a very robust data system that will allow 

us to try to verify information, working with different consular offices also throughout the world to make sure we have good understanding or identification of these people. But any tools that we can 

get that will help us are going to make our jobs a lot easier. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you for spelling this out and going on 

the record, because I think it is important, again, that we stand 

united against human trafficking, that we stop people are that trying to smuggle and exploit children. Clearly there is a loophole in 

our law that was probably well-intentioned at the time that it was 

passed into law, but clearly is being used for really despicable purposes. 

With that, I yield back. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

Before we shift to the next panel, I thank the witnesses for their 

testimony. I will now call up the second panel of witnesses. 

While we are doing that I just want to remind folks that the 

hearing today is on retention and recruitment for CBP. This is one 

of those issues that I think the more you start picking at different 

33 

threads, the more you see the overall challenge. But as much as 

we can focus on the task at hand I would really appreciate it. I 

think that is how often we can create the most bipartisan solutions. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. I now welcome the second panel of witnesses. 

Our first witness, Mr. John Goodman, is the chief executive of 

Accenture Federal Services. Mr. Goodman has held a variety of 

leadership roles since joining Accenture in 1998. Prior to joining 

Accenture he served for 5 years in Federal Government as the deputy under secretary of defense, deputy assistant secretary of defense, and as a staff member of the National Economic Council. 

Second, Mr. Anthony ‘‘Tony’’ Reardon serves as the national 

president of the National Treasury Employees Union. NTEU represents 150,000 Federal employees, including CBP officers who 

work for CBP’s Office of Field Operations. In his role as national 

president, Mr. Reardon serves as a spokesperson for the union, representing NTEU before the media, Congress, and agency leadership. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his statement 

for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Goodman. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GOODMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 

ACCENTURE FEDERAL SERVICES 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you. Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking 

Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. I am John Goodman, chief executive of Accenture Federal Services, or AFS. 

I am pleased to discuss AFS’ work with the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection and specifically to share our insights on the innovative approaches we are taking to tackle CBP’s long-standing 

problem of recruiting and hiring, the progress we have made, the 

challenges we have encountered, and the value we are providing to 

help CBP meet its goals. 

AFS has been a valued partner to the U.S. Federal Government 

for more than 4 decades. As someone who served in leadership 

roles in the Federal Government, I am honored to lead an organization of 9,000 professionals who have the singular purpose of helping Federal agencies solve their toughest challenges. 

For example, through our work at the Defense Logistics Agency 

we have helped them more effectively deliver goods and services 

needed by our servicemen and servicewomen around the world. We 

have helped the Transportation Security Administration recruit 

and hire 12,000 individuals in 2018 to make air travel safer. We 

have worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs to bring the 

most innovative technologies to advance quality medical care for 

our veterans. 

We are focused today on CBP contracts to recruit and hire Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, and Air 

and Marine interdiction agents. Applicants, as we have heard, undergo a rigorous 12-step hiring process that includes an entrance 

exam, medical and physical tests, and a polygraph. 

At the time of contract award CBP needed to recruit more than 

130 initial applicants just to successfully hire one Border Patrol 

agent. The innovative contract structure incentivized AFS to build 

34 

a high-quality applicant pipeline and increase the number of hires. 

This contract was very favorable both to the agency and the taxpayer. Approximately 93 percent of the dollars to AFS could only 

be paid as new agents are hired and enter on duty. 

Since contract award we have designed and implemented important innovations for CBP, including a new hiring and recruiting 

system, a digital marketing and advertising campaign, an applicant 

care or customer relationship management system, and two new 

U.S.-based call centers that are fully accredited to CBP security 

standards. 

These innovations enabled AFS to develop a talent network of 

more than 100,000 candidates and a full recruitment and hiring capability that has processed over 4,000 applicants through various 

hiring steps as of December 2018. 

In short, AFS helped lay a foundation for a modern state-of-theart process that is delivering results. 

Unfortunately, recent media reports and an IG report have 

painted an inaccurate and an incomplete picture of our contract 

performance. We agree with CBP that the IG’s report 

mischaracterizes the contract and ignores our progress. 

This is a performance-based, per-hire contract. We receive pay- ment, approximately $40,000 per hire, only when we hire CBP 

agents and officers. Eighty percent of that payment is made when 

the applicant accepts the offer, and the remaining 20 percent is 

paid once the applicant enters on duty. 

CBP issued its first task order for approximately 600 hires in November 2017, and an additional 400 hires were tasked in September 2018. As of December 3, we had about 4,000 applicants in 

the process and 56 accepted job offers, for which we received about 

$2 million. The only guaranteed payments to AFS were tied to 

startup, security, and transition costs, and to date AFS has been 

paid approximately $19 million related to these requirements, including our recruiting and applicant care systems that are reusable 

and will permit CBP to continue to attract qualified applicants. 

Although we were bringing a sufficient number of applicants into 

the pipeline to deliver the required hires to meet our actual task 

orders, our projections at the end of last summer identified some 

obstacles in the hiring process in the future, and as a result our 

forecasted hiring time lines did not show the desired acceleration 

in the hiring process that CBP and we both desired. We immediately engaged with CBP to address these challenges and we are 

continuing to work with CBP to determine how we can best support their mission. 

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with three thoughts. 

First, AFS delivered real value to CBP by developing and deploying leading commercial capabilities to support the recruiting process. 

Second, AFS has not been paid for any services we did not provide. 

Third, we are working closely with CBP, as we have done from 

Day 1, as it considers the best path forward. We are committed to 

our clients and the success of their mission. We always strive to 

meet their goals. 

Thank you, and I welcome your questions. 

35 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GOODMAN

MARCH 7, 2019 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Accountability, thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. My name is John Goodman, and I am the chief executive of 

Accenture Federal Services, or AFS. I am pleased to be here today to testify about 

AFS’s work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This is an important and 

multifaceted project. I appreciate the opportunity to share our insights into the innovative approaches we are taking to tackle a long-standing problem, the progress 

we have made, the challenges we have encountered, and the refinements we are 

making to help CBP meet its goals. 

AFS has been a valued partner to the U.S. Federal Government for more than 

4 decades. Every day, the 9,000 people of AFS work side-by-side with thousands of 

dedicated public servants to solve their toughest challenges at the heart of our Nation’s priorities, from National defense to health care access and quality. We bring 

together innovation, the latest technology, and leading commercial practices so our 

Federal clients can make a real and positive impact on how Americans work and 

live. As someone who served in various leadership roles in the Federal Government, 

I consider it an honor to lead an organization that has the singular purpose of helping Federal departments, agencies, and offices perform their missions. For example, 

I’m proud to say that, through our work, the Army can better manage its finances, 

and the Defense Logistics Agency can more effectively deliver goods and services 

needed by our servicemen and -women around the world. I am also proud of the 

work AFS has done with the Department of Veterans Affairs to bring the most innovative technology solutions to advance and optimize quality medical care for our Nation’s veterans. And we have helped the Transportation Security Administration recruit and hire 12,000 positions in 2018 to make air travel safer. Work like this is 

squarely within our mission at Accenture: To improve the way people live and do 

business, making processes more efficient and technology more effective. 

The subcommittee today is focused on CBP’s efforts to recruit, hire, and retain 

Border Patrol agents, Customs Border Protection officers, and Air and Marine Interdiction agents. These are important positions essential to protect the homeland. As 

one might expect, the hiring process is rigorous and lengthy. Applicants must successfully navigate 12 steps in the hiring process, where they must meet physical requirements, pass an entrance exam, undergo an interview, pass a drug test, complete a background investigation, and undergo a polygraph examination. At the time 

we were awarded a contract to assist CBP with recruitment and hiring, more than 

130 initial applicants were needed to successfully hire 1 Border Patrol agent. 

CBP engaged AFS through an innovative contract structure that incentivized AFS 

to use commercial best practices and new technologies to build a high-quality applicant pipeline and increase the number of hires. This contract was very favorable to 

both the agency and taxpayer, in that approximately 93 percent of the dollars to 

AFS could only be paid as new agents are hired and report for duty. Subsequent 

contract modifications also enabled the new technology solutions that we developed 

to be tailored to additional CBP needs at no additional cost to the Government. 

Since the contract was awarded, AFS has delivered significant capabilities, and 

we are fully operational in accordance with the contract terms. The team has designed and implemented a number of important innovations for CBP, including: 

• A hiring and recruitment platform that included a Talent Network of recruits 

for CBP front-line officer and agent positions; 

• A Digital Marketing and Advertising Campaign, with new creative materials, 

digital advertising, and on-line interaction capabilities, that is targeting potential candidates and driving improvements in the effectiveness of AFS and CBP 

marketing investments; 

• A Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform that allows AFS to provide on-going regular applicant care to engage with applicants throughout a 

300-plus day hiring cycle; and 

• Two new call centers that are fully accredited to CBP Security Standards that 

support applicants processed by AFS and CBP. 

As a result of these efforts, AFS has developed a Talent Network of more than 

100,000 candidates, and a full recruitment and hiring capability that has processed 

4,795 applicants through various hiring steps as of December 1, 2018. In short, AFS 

helped lay a foundation for a modern, state-of-the-art hiring process that is today 

delivering results for CBP. One result was a significant improvement in the hiring 

36 

ratio of applicants to job offers, which was achieved through the joint efforts of AFS 

and CBP. 

Unfortunately, recent media reports, as well as a DHS inspector general report, 

have painted an inaccurate and incomplete picture of AFS’s performance under the 

contract. We share the concerns expressed by CBP that the inspector general’s report mischaracterizes the nature of the contract and the progress made on this 

project, while ignoring the real and lasting value we have provided to CBP. 

This is a performance-based contract. It is based on a pay-per-hire model under 

which AFS receives payment only when it hires CBP agents and officers. As noted, 

93 percent of the overall contract is not guaranteed. More specifically, AFS receives 

approximately $40,000 per agent or officer hire. The payment is tied to reaching key 

milestones: 80 percent of the $40,000 is paid when the applicant accepts the offer, 

and the remaining 20 percent is paid once the applicant reports for duty. To date, 

approximately $2 million was in performance fees for attracting and processing 56 

individuals who accepted job offers with CBP. 

The only part of the contract that is guaranteed to AFS are payments specifically 

tied to start-up, security, and transition costs, and to date, AFS has been paid approximately $19 million related to these transition and security requirements, including building an infrastructure for CBP to better market to, track, and serve applicants. This technology is reusable and will permit CBP to attract a larger number 

of qualified applicants who are receiving more personalized support and staying in 

the recruiting process longer. We understand that CBP is now using these innovations and the recruitment technology that we have introduced for all of their applicants in other hiring efforts and will continue to be able to do so in the future. 

That said, by the end of last summer, our forecasted hiring time lines did not 

show the acceleration in the hiring process that both CBP and AFS wanted to see. 

We immediately engaged with CBP to address these challenges, and we are continuing to work in partnership with CBP to determine how we can best support 

their mission. 

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with three thoughts. First, AFS delivered 

real value to CBP by developing and deploying leading commercial capabilities to 

the recruiting process, which CBP can still use even if our role in the hiring process 

changes. Second, we want to reiterate that AFS has not been paid for any services 

we did not undertake, or any accomplishments that we did not achieve. Third, we 

are working closely with CBP, as we have done from Day 1, as it considers the best 

path forward. We are committed not just to our clients but to theirs and yours— 

the taxpayer. We will always strive to meet their goals. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Mr. Reardon to summarize his statement for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Mr. REARDON. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Torres Small and 

Ranking Member Crenshaw and committee Members. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of over 27,000 

front-line Customs and Border Protection officers, agriculture specialists, and trade enforcement specialists at CBP. 

These men and women are proud and they are extraordinarily 

mission-focused. They work at 328 U.S. air, sea, and land ports of 

entry and at preclearance operations overseas. They ensure the efficient processing of legitimate trade, travel, and asylum seekers 

who present themselves at the ports of entry and stop illicit trafficking of people, drugs, weapons, and money. 

As I have testified in the past, the border security issues of utmost concern to CBP Office of Field Operations employees are the 

hiring and funding challenges that contribute to the ports of entry 

being chronically understaffed. CBP officers’ safety and morale are 

negatively impacted by these staffing shortages and lead to, among 

37 

other things, excessive overtime requirements and temporary duty 

assignments to the Southwest Border ports. 

There is no greater roadblock to border security than the lack of 

sufficient staff at the ports, and the current CBP officer shortage 

is staggering. 

NTEU applauds Congress for funding, after a devastating 35-day 

partial Government shutdown, 600 new CBP officers in the fiscal 

year 2019 funding deal. But with 1,600 vacant positions and 1,900 

positions not yet funded that leaves a total staffing shortage of 

3,500 CBP officers. 

The economic cost of this shortage is also staggering. Understaffed ports lead to long delays in travel and cargo lanes. According to CBP, for every 33 additional CBP officers hired, the United 

States could potentially gain over 1,000 private-sector jobs. That 

means if Congress fully staffed the ports it could lead to the creation of 106,000 private-sector jobs. 

Understaffed ports also create a significant hardship for frontline employees. Both involuntary overtime and involuntary work 

assignments far from home disrupt CBP officers’ family lives and 

destroys morale. 

With CBP officer attrition hovering around 4 percent Congress 

must direct CBP to use all recruitment and retention tools at their 

disposal. However, NTEU did not support CBP’s decision to award 

a multimillion-dollar contract to augment CBP’s hiring process. 

NTEU, rather, believes that this money could be better spent by 

utilizing available pay flexibilities to incentivize new and existing 

CBP officers to seek vacant positions at hard-to-fill ports of entry. 

We are relieved to learn that CBP is negotiating an end to this 

costly and wasteful contract. 

Even though they are severely understaffed, the results of CBP 

officers’ drug interdiction efforts is indisputable. For example, this 

past January CBP officers made the biggest fentanyl seizure ever, 

capturing nearly 254 pounds of the deadly synthetic opioid at the 

Nogales port of entry. 

According to the DEA, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered 

a lethal dose. CBP estimates that its officers confiscated in this one 

seizure alone enough fentanyl to kill 57 million people. That is 

more than the combined population of the States of Illinois, New 

York, and Pennsylvania. The street value for the amount of 

fentanyl seized was over $102 million. 

It is vital that Congress continue to authorize and fund additional staffing to ensure CBP officers can continue to succeed in 

this important work. 

But I do want to be very clear, NTEU strongly supports border 

security, and that is why we fought for many, many years for additional funding to increase CBP’s staffing at the ports and to fix the 

hiring process so employees can be brought on more quickly. We 

have fought for better equipment, pay, and benefits for all CBP employees. All of these things contribute to a strong border. 

The CBP employees I represent are frustrated that the administration does not seem to recognize that securing the ports of entry 

is just as vital to border security as securing the borders between 

the ports of entry and that the ports are an economic driver to the 

U.S. economy. 

38 

NTEU applauds Congress for making a downpayment to reduce 

the critical CBP officer staffing gap by funding 600 new hires in 

the fiscal year 2019 funding bill, but that is just a start. It is imperative that Congress continue to authorize and fund additional 

new CBP officers and that CBP use all recruitment and retention 

tools at their disposal. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON

MARCH 7, 2019 

Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 27,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, agriculture specialists, and trade enforcement personnel stationed at 328 land, 

sea, and air ports of entry across the United States and 16 Preclearance stations 

currently in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada, and United Arab Emirates airports. 

CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) pursues a dual mission of safeguarding 

American ports, by protecting the public from dangerous people and materials, 

while enhancing the Nation’s global and economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel. CBP OFO employees are responsible for border security, 

including anti-terrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and agriculture protection at U.S. ports of entry. 

In addition to CBP’s trade and travel security, processing and facilitation mission, 

CBP OFO employees at the ports of entry are the second-largest source of revenue 

collection for the U.S. Government. In 2018, CBP processed more than $2.6 trillion 

in imports and collected approximately $4 billion in duties, taxes, and other fees. 

That is why it is critically important for this subcommittee to address the issue of 

CBP understaffing. 

For years, NTEU has been working with the administration and Congress to try 

and improve recruitment and retention at Federal agencies, especially those individuals with hard-to-find critical skills and areas with critical staffing needs. However, 

shutting down the Government and making Federal workers go without pay while 

implementing a pay freeze does nothing to help with this effort. 

For 35 days, over 800,000 Federal employees, including 27,000 at CBP OFO 

missed 2 paychecks that jeopardized their families’ financial stability. Those who 

were required to work without pay had limited to no ability to earn additional income with part-time work and were unable to get unemployment benefits. Furthermore, some who worked unpaid were required to make prompt payments on official 

Government purchases made on their Government-issued credit cards while the 

Federal Government was shut down and unable to reimburse them. This 35-day 

shutdown was hard on all employees, but especially so for those with the least 

means, who could not float Government purchases or live on savings while they 

went without their paychecks. This was an unconscionable way to treat the dedicated employees who serve the American people. 

NTEU appreciates that Congress agreed on a funding bill that not only granted 

all Federal employees a pay raise, but also funded 600 new CBP officer hires that 

are desperately needed. Having met with thousands of CBP officers at the ports of 

entry, I can tell you that the No. 1 CBP workforce challenge from the CBP OFO 

employee perspective is the critical staffing shortage at the ports of entry, and this 

staffing shortage is staggering. Understaffed ports lead to long delays in travel and 

cargo lanes and also create significant hardship and safety issues for front-line employees. Involuntary overtime and involuntary work assignments far from home disrupts CBP officers’ family life and destroys morale. 

With the addition of fiscal year 2019 funding for 600 new CBP officers plus an 

existing 1,000 vacant funded CBP officer positions, CBP now has 1,600 vacancies. 

According to CBP’s updated analytic workload staffing model (WSM), an additional 

1,900 CBP officers and 721 agriculture specialists need to be funded and hired in 

order to meet current staffing needs, bringing the total CBP officer staffing shortage 

to 3,500 today. 

The more than 27,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of their 

part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs, 

39 

and our economy safe from illegal trade, while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously through our air, sea, and land ports. But front-line CBP 

officers and agriculture specialists at our Nation’s ports of entry need relief. 

The economic cost of the CBP OFO staffing shortage is also staggering. CBP employees at the ports of entry are not only the front line for illegal trade and travel 

enforcement, but their role of facilitating legal trade and travel is a significant economic driver for private-sector jobs and economic growth. According to CBP WSM 

data, for every 1,000 CBP officers hired there is an increase in the Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP) of $2 billion; $642 million in opportunity costs are saved (the quantification of time that a traveler could be using for other purposes than waiting in 

line, such as working or enjoying leisure activities); and 33,148 annual jobs are 

added. If CBP filled the 1,600 vacant positions and Congress funded the additional 

1,900 needed new positions, the impact could be as high as a $7 billion increase in 

GDP; a $2.25 billion savings in opportunity costs; and the creation of 106,000 new 

private-sector jobs. 

Also, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the volume of commerce 

crossing our borders has more than tripled in the past 25 years. Long wait times 

lead to delays and travel time uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and 

transportation costs. According to the Department of Commerce, border delays result in losses to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to decreases in spending 

by companies, suppliers, and consumers. JEC research finds border delays cost the 

U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8 billion each year. 

Noting the positive impact of hiring additional CBP officers, it is troubling that 

the President’s 2017 Border Security Executive Order and his subsequent budget requests did not ask for one additional CBP officer new hire. In 2017, CBP officers 

at the ports of entry recorded over 216,370 apprehensions and seized over 444,000 

pounds of illegal drugs, and over $96 million in illicit currency, while processing 

over 390 million travelers and $2.2 trillion in imports through the ports. Imagine 

what they could do with adequate staffing and resources. 

The risk of successful incursions through the ports of entry by terrorists, smugglers, and other criminals increase when ports are under constant pressure to limit 

wait times while working short-staffed. As port traffic increases, it will become more 

difficult for CBP officers and agriculture specialists to stop bad actors and bad 

things from coming through the ports without significantly increasing wait times, 

which will harm legal international trade and travel. 

CBP OFFICER STAFFING CHALLENGES

NTEU continues to have significant concerns about the slow pace of hiring at 

CBP. CBP struggled to fill the initial 2,000 positions Congress authorized in 2014. 

One factor that may be hindering hiring is that CBP is not utilizing to its full extent 

available pay flexibilities, such as recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives 

(3 Rs) and special salary rates, to incentivize new and existing CBP officers to seek 

vacant positions at hard-to-fill, remote ports, such as Columbus, New Mexico. When 

using a recruitment incentive to attract employees to a certain location, CBP must 

be mindful that this incentive should be used in conjunction with retention incentives. Otherwise, a situation is created where a newly-hired employee is working 

side-by-side with a veteran employee that not only is denied the opportunity to 

transfer out, but may also now be paid less than a new recruit. The 3 Rs are also 

needed to attract transfers to the most severely short-staffed ports, such as San 

Ysidro and Nogales. 

Another 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. Until last year when CBP initiated a polygraph pilot, 2 

out of 3 applicants failed its polygraph—about 65 percent—more than double the 

average rate of 8 law enforcement agencies according to data provided to the Associated Press, which had an average failure rate of 28 percent. For example, only 36 

percent of applicants failed the polygraph test at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in the past 2 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. CBP reviewed its 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 and is currently piloting a change in the CBP polygraph test, 

which appears to be resulting in improved passage rates. Since the pilot has shown 

a polygraph passage rate that is more in line with other Federal law enforcement 

agencies, NTEU supports ending the pilot and CBP adopting this polygraph test for 

all CBP applicants. 

40 

NTEU also recommends that CBP allow immediate polygraph retesting opportunities to those with a ‘‘No Opinion’’ or ‘‘Inconclusive’’ result, including those with a 

‘‘No Opinion Counter Measures’’ finding. 

NTEU commends Congress for including a provision in the fiscal year 2019 Defense authorization bill that authorized the CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph 

examination requirements for certain veterans applying for CBP job openings. 

NTEU also supports legislation that expands the authority to waive polygraph examinations for veterans and to allow exemptions for existing State and local law enforcement officers who apply for these positions at CBP. 

In addition to issues with the polygraph process, NTEU has heard that CBP candidates frequently are subject to a segmented hiring process where, in some cases, 

they are required to travel hundreds of miles to fulfill the required tests and procedures. This can be a significant hardship for applicants that results in some of them 

withdrawing from consideration. 

Finally, as CBP makes progress in filling new and vacant positions, they may 

need to expand their training classes. When experiencing a hiring surge in the past, 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) instituted a 6-day training 

program to accommodate the expanded classes. NTEU supports FLETC 6-day training, as long as the employees are paid for 6 days of training. NTEU is proud to represent FLETC employees that work and reside in various locations across the country. 

ACCENTURE HIRING CONTRACT

To address some of these hiring concerns, on November 12, 2017, CBP awarded a $297 million contract with Accenture Federal Services ‘‘to manage the full life 

cycle of the hiring process from job posting to processing’’ of 7,500 CBP Border Patrol, Air and Marine, and OFO new hires. 

NTEU strongly believes that these Federal funds would be better spent actually 

hiring new CBP employees using CBP’s in-house human resources department rather than contracting out this work to a private-sector consultant. 

After evaluating the first year of CBP’s contract with Accenture, the DHS Office 

of Inspector General concluded that ‘‘CBP may have paid Accenture for services and 

tools not provided.’’ And, ‘‘CBP risks wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a hastily-approved contract that is not meeting its proposed performance expectations.’’ 

(OIG–19–13, page 6) NTEU applauds CBP for its decision to negotiate an end to 

this imprudent contract. 

PEER-TO-PEER RECRUITMENT

Like most employers, CBP’s best recruiters should be current CBP officers. Unfortunately, morale continues to suffer because of the recent shutdown, staffing shortages, possible pay freezes, and the administration’s proposed cuts to retirement, 

health care, and workers’ compensation programs. In addition to being overworked 

due to excessive overtime requirements, temporary duty assignments are a major 

drag on employees, especially those with families. Based on their experiences, many 

officers are reluctant to encourage their family members or friends to seek employment with CBP. 

NTEU strongly believes that addressing OFO hiring shortages by funding needed 

new CBP officer and agriculture specialist to fill the WSM staffing gap and by ending pay freezes, shutdowns, and proposals to cut employee benefits will improve morale and encourage peer-to-peer recruitment, which would be much more beneficial 

to CBP recruitment than spending millions on a private contractor. 

CBP OFFICER OVERTIME

Due to the on-going current staffing shortage of 3,500 CBP officers, CBP officers 

Nation-wide are working excessive overtime to maintain basic port staffing. Currently, CBP officer overtime pay is funded 100 percent through user fees and is 

statutorily capped at $45,000 per year. All CBP officers are aware that overtime assignments are an aspect of their jobs. However, long periods of overtime hours can 

severely disrupt an officer’s family life, morale, and ultimately their job performance 

protecting our Nation. 

Because of the on-going staffing shortages, CBP officers can be required to regularly work overtime which results in individual officers hitting the overtime cap 

very early in the fiscal year. This leaves no overtime funding available for peak season travel, resulting in critical staffing shortages in the third and fourth quarter of 

the fiscal year that usually coincide with holiday travel at the ports. 

At many ports, CBP has granted overtime exemptions to over one-half of the 

workforce to allow managers to assign overtime to officers that have already 

41 

reached the statutory overtime cap, but cap waivers only force CBP officers already 

working long daily shifts to continue working these shifts for more days. Officers 

are required to come in hours before their regular shifts, to stay an indeterminate 

number of hours after their shifts (on the same day) and are compelled to come in 

for more overtime hours on their regular days off as well. Both involuntary overtime—resulting in 12- to 16-hour shifts, day after day, for months on end—and involuntary work assignments far from home, significantly disrupt CBP officers’ family life and erode morale. As NTEU has repeatedly stated, this is not a long-term 

solution for staffing shortages at the ports and has gone on for far too long. 

TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS AT SOUTHWEST LAND PORTS OF ENTRY

Due to CBP’s on-going staffing shortage, since 2015, CBP has been diverting hundreds of CBP officers from other air, sea, and land ports to severely short-staffed 

Southwest land ports for 90-day temporary duty assignments (TDYs). Owing to the 

failure to fill CBP officer positions, neither the San Ysidro nor the Nogales land 

ports can safely function without these TDYs. Last summer, CBP asked for volunteers for TDYs because, according to CBP, the San Diego and Tucson Field Office 

were experiencing critical shortages of front-line personnel, further stating that 

‘‘These long-term staffing shortfalls continue to stretch the limits of operational, enforcement, and training capabilities at the ports of entry.’’ 

In November 2018, CBP began a new TDY program to support ‘‘Operation Secure 

Line—Mobile Field Force (MFF) Plan Implementation.’’ This TDY again diverts 

CBP officers with MFF site security and crowd control training from other shortstaffed ports of entry to sustain enforcement level posture at San Ysidro and 

Nogales to manage the influx of asylum seekers at these ports. Also, as the focus 

of TDYs changed from passenger processing to site security the number of inadmissible travelers CBP is operationally capable to process is reduced. 

To end all these TDYs, CBP must fill existing CBP officer vacancies and fund the 

hiring of the additional CBP officers called for in CBP’s own WSM. In the mean 

time, to encourage volunteers for these TDYs and avoid forced TDYs, NTEU suggests Congress ask CBP to include the following in its future TDY solicitations: 

• Increase the TDY pool by including non-bargaining unit personnel such as 

qualified Headquarters staff, supervisors, and other employees on special teams 

such as the Tactical Terrorism Response Team and the Strategic Response 

Team, and by including all officers who have graduated from FLETC and who 

have received a sufficient amount of post-academy training; 

• Schedule TDYs in such a way that the supplemental staffing through TDYs remains constant, so there is not a gap between the departure of one round of 

TDYs and the arrival of the next, and a surplus of volunteers for a TDY from 

one Field Office should be allowed to make up for a shortage of volunteers in 

another Field Office; 

• Establish an advertised cash award for individuals who volunteer for a TDY 

and should offer available incentives such as student loan repayments, overtime 

cap waivers, and home leave; and 

• Allow approved leave during a TDY. 

AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST STAFFING

CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases at ports of entry. For years, 

NTEU has championed the CBP agriculture specialists’ Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission within the agency and fought for increased staffing to fulfill that 

mission. The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American economy, generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity. According to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, foreign pests and diseases cost the American economy 

tens of billions of dollars annually. 

NTEU believes that staffing shortages and lack of mission priority for the critical 

work performed by CBP agriculture specialists, CBP agriculture detector dog teams 

and CBP technicians assigned to the ports is a continuing threat to the U.S. economy. At many ports, such as the port of Houston, there are not enough agriculture 

specialists to staff all shifts and CBP officers are backfilling for agriculture specialists. 

NTEU worked with Congress to include a provision in Pub. L. 114–125, the Trade 

Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA), which required CBP to submit, 

by the end of February 2017, a plan to create an agricultural specialist career track 

and a time line for fulfilling staffing deficits identified in the most recent agricultural resource allocation models (AgRAM). CBP’s AgRAM showed a need for an additional 721 front-line CBP agriculture specialists and supervisors to address curVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
42 

rent workloads through fiscal year 2018; however, even with the 2016 increase in 

AQI user fees, CBP proposed to fund only 2,418 CBP agriculture specialist positions 

in fiscal year 2018, not the 3,149 called for by the AgRAM. 

Because of CBP’s key mission to protect the Nation’s agriculture from pests and 

disease, NTEU urges the committee to authorize the hiring of these 721 CBP agriculture specialists to address this critical staffing shortage that threatens the U.S. 

agriculture sector. 

CBP TRADE OPERATIONS STAFFING

CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation’s borders and ports and regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP employees at the ports of entry are 

critical in protecting our Nation’s economic growth and security. For every dollar invested in CBP trade personnel, we return $87 to the U.S. economy, either through 

lowering the costs of trade, ensuring a level playing field for domestic industry or 

by protecting innovative intellectual property. Since CBP was established in March 

2003, however, there has been no increase in non-uniformed CBP trade enforcement 

and compliance personnel. Additionally, CBP trade operations staffing has fallen 

below the statutory floor set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and stipulated in the fiscal year 2017 CBP Resource Optimization Model for Trade Positions. 

NTEU strongly supports CBP funding 140 new hires at the CBP Office of Trade 

through direct appropriations to support TFTEA implementation. 

CBP CANINE PROGRAM

The CBP Canine Program is also critical to CBP’s mission. The primary goal of 

the CBP Canine Program is terrorist detection and apprehension. The working CBP 

canine team is one of the best tools available to detect and apprehend persons attempting entry into the country to organize, incite, and carry out acts of terrorism. 

The Canine Program’s secondary goal is detection and seizure of controlled substances and other contraband that is often used to finance terrorist and/or criminal 

drug trafficking organizations. Currently, there are 1,500 authorized canine teams 

and, as with all CBP resources, there is a shortage of OFO canine teams Nationwide and many canine teams at international airports have been sent to Southwest 

Border ports to alleviate shortages there. NTEU supports Congress fully funding 

and staffing the CBP canine detection program. 

OPIOID INTERDICTION

CBP OFO is the foremost DHS component tasked with stemming the Nation’s 

opioid epidemic. In a report released on May 10, 2018, by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Minority titled ‘‘Combatting the Opioid 

Epidemic: Intercepting Illicit Opioids at Ports of Entry’’, CBP officers at the ports 

of entry were found to ‘‘play a key role in stopping opioids and that CBP has significant shortages of Port Officers that may be compromising efforts to seize additional 

opioids before they can reach U.S. communities.’’ 

The smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids has increased markedly. According 

to the report, ‘‘between 2013 and 2017, approximately 25,405 pounds, or 88 percent 

of all opioids seized by CBP, were seized at ports of entry. The amount of fentanyl 

seized at the ports of entry increased by 159 percent from 459 pounds in 2016 to 

1,189 pounds in 2017.’’ 

The scourge of synthetic opioid addiction is felt in every State and is a threat to 

the Nation’s economic security and well-being. The majority of fentanyl is manufactured in other countries such as China, and is smuggled primarily through the ports 

of entry along the Southwest Border and through international mail and express 

consignment carrier facilities (e.g. FedEx and UPS). As the Senate report states, 

CBP officers are, ‘‘in the majority of cases, the last line of defense in preventing illicit opioids from entering the United States... CBP’s current shortage of over 

4,000 Port Officers is directly influencing operations and staffing these positions 

could increase CBP’s ability to interdict opioids.’’ The Nation’s busiest land port of 

entry San Ysidro, along with the Tucson area land ports, account for ‘‘57 percent 

of all opioids seized by ports of entry, including 75 percent of all fentanyl and 61 

percent of all heroin seized.’’ These two land ports are also the most critically understaffed. 

On January 26, 2019, CBP OFO made their biggest fentanyl seizure ever, capturing nearly 254 pounds of the deadly synthetic opioid at the Nogales port of entry. 

According to the DEA, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose. 

From the January 26 seizure alone, it is estimated that CBP officers seized enough 

fentanyl to kill 57 million people. That’s more than the combined population of the 

States of Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. The street value for the fentanyl 

43 

was over $102 million. CBP officers also seized an additional 2.2 pounds of fentanyl 

pills and a large cache of methamphetamine. 

Also, over the past 5 years, CBP has seen nearly 50 percent increase in express 

consignment shipments. In fiscal year CBP processed more than 76 million express 

bills; in fiscal year 2017, that number totaled 110 million. International mail shipments have increased by more than 200 percent over the past 5 years, from approximately 150 million to more than 500 million. Yet, according to CBP, over the last 

3 years, there were only 181 CBP employees assigned to the 5 Postal Service International Service Centers and 208 CBP employees assigned to the Private Express 

Carrier Facilities. 

In the past year, the FedEx hub in Memphis processed 38 million imports and 

48 million exports—equaling 86 million in total package volume. There are approximately 24 CBP officers screening all 86 million shipments, and on average, about 

15 CBP officers are working the main overnight FedEx ‘‘sort’’ shift. Considering the 

volume at the FedEx hub, NTEU has been told that the port requires a minimum 

of 60 CBP officers to facilitate the flow of legitimate freight and ensure successful 

interdiction of these synthetic chemicals. NTEU urges Congress to provide CBP 

OFO with the critical funding it needs to support these efforts at the air, sea, and 

land ports of entry, as well as international postal and express consignment hubs. 

NTEU worked with Congress on the passage of Pub. L. 115–271, the Synthetics 

Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act, or STOP Act. The new law requires CBP 

to provide additional CBP officers to express consignment and international mail facilities and requires CBP to report to Congress on an annual basis on the individuals and companies that violate the electronic advance data requirements of the 

Trade Act of 2002. Requiring CBP to annually report this useful information on violators and violator penalty assessments will enhance CBP’s interdiction of prohibited items from entering the United States through express consignment operators. 

CBP FUNDING SOURCES

CBP collects Customs User Fees (CUFs), including those under the Consolidated 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), to recover certain costs incurred for processing air and sea passengers and various private and commercial 

land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments. The source of these user fees are 

commercial vessels, commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, 

air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs brokers, and barge/bulk carriers. 

COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are designated 

by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as 100 percent of 

inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 24,576 CBP officers currently funded, Customs User Fees 

(CUFs) fund 3,825 full-time equivalent (FTEs) CBP officers. Further, Immigration 

Inspection User Fees (IUF) fund 4,179 CBPO FTEs. CUF and IUF user fees fund 

8,004 CBPO FTEs or one-third of the entire CBP workforce at the ports of entry. 

NTEU strongly opposes the diversion of CUFs. Any increases to the CUF Account 

should be properly used for much-needed CBP staffing and not diverted to unrelated 

projects. Unfortunately, while section 52202 of the FAST ACT indexed CUFs to inflation, it diverted this funding from CBP to pay for unrelated infrastructure 

projects. Indexing COBRA CUFs to inflation would have raised $1.4 billion over 10 

years—a potential $140 million per year funding stream to help pay for the hiring 

of additional CBP officers to perform CBP’s border security, law enforcement, and 

trade and travel facilitation missions. Diverting these funds has cost CBP funding 

to hire over 900 new CBP officers per year since the FAST Act went into effect. 

These new hires would have significantly alleviated the current CBP officer staffing 

shortage. 

In order to find alternative sources of funding to address serious staffing shortages, CBP received authorization for and has entered into Reimbursable Service 

Agreements (RSAs) with the private sector, as well as with State and local governmental entities. These stakeholders, who are already paying CUFs and IUFs for 

CBP OFO employee positions and overtime, reimburse CBP for additional inspection 

services, including overtime pay and the hiring of new CBP officer and agriculture 

specialist personnel that in the past have been paid for entirely by user fees or appropriated funding. According to CBP, since the program began in 2013, CBP has 

entered into agreements with over 149 stakeholders covering 111 U.S. ports of 

entry, providing more than 467,000 additional processing hours for incoming commercial and cargo traffic. 

NTEU believes that the RSA program is a Band-Aid approach and cannot replace 

the need for Congress to either appropriate new funding or authorize an increase 

44 

in customs and immigration user fees to adequately address CBP staffing needs at 

the ports. 

RSAs simply cannot replace the need for an increase in CBP appropriated or user 

fee funding—and make CBP a ‘‘pay-to-play’’ agency. NTEU also remains concerned 

with CBP’s new Preclearance expansion program that also relies heavily on ‘‘payto-play.’’ Further, NTEU believes that the use of RSAs to fund CBP staffing shortages raises significant equity issues between larger and/or wealthier ports and 

smaller ports. 

RATIO OF SUPERVISORS TO FRONT-LINE PERSONNEL

Another concern is that CBP continues to be a top-heavy management organization. Since its creation, the number of new managers has increased at a much higher rate than the number of new front-line CBP hires. CBP’s own fiscal year 2015 

end-of-year workforce profile (dated 10/3/15), showed that the supervisor to frontline employee ratio was 1 to 5.6 for the total CBP workforce, 1 to 5.7 for CBP officers and 1 to 6.6 for agriculture specialists. Prior to 2003, the supervisor to frontline ratio was closer to 1 supervisor to 12. It is also NTEU’s understanding that 

nearly 1,000 CBP officers are serving either at CBP headquarters or non-Office of 

Field Operations locations. This means that nearly 4,000 CBP officers are serving 

in supervisory positions. 

The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at the expense of National security preparedness and front-line positions. Also, these highlypaid management positions are straining the CBP budget. CBP’s top-heavy management structure contributes to the lack of adequate staffing at the ports, excessive 

overtime schedules, and flagging morale among the rank and file. 

NTEU RECOMMENDATIONS

To address CBP’s workforce challenges, it is clearly in the Nation’s economic and 

security interest for Congress to authorize and fund an increase in the number of 

CBP officers, CBP agriculture specialists, and other CBP employees. 

In order to achieve the long-term goal of securing the proper staffing at CBP, 

NTEU recommends that Congress take the following actions: 

• Fill the 1,600 CBP officer-funded positions that are currently vacant; 

• Fund an additional 1,900 new CBP officers; 

• Address the polygraph process to mitigate excessive (60 percent) applicant polygraph failures; 

• Fund 721 new CBP agriculture specialists hires; 

• Fully fund and utilize recruitment and retention awards, and other incentives; 

and 

• Restore cuts in mission support personnel that will free CBP officers from performing administrative duties such as payroll processing, data entry, and 

human resources to increase the numbers available for trade and travel security 

and facilitation. 

Congress should also redirect the increase in customs user fees in the FAST Act 

from offsetting transportation spending to its original purpose of providing funding 

for CBP officer staffing and overtime, and oppose any legislation to divert additional 

fees collected to other uses or projects. 

Shutdowns, pay freezes, and proposed cuts to benefits, rights, and protections do 

nothing to help with recruitment and retention of CBP officers. The employees I represent are frustrated and their morale is indeed low. These employees work hard 

and care deeply about their jobs and their country. These men and women are deserving of more staffing and resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on their behalf. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you, Mr. Reardon. 

I thank all the witnesses for their testimony, and I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

The first question goes to both of you. I would like to start with 

Mr. Reardon. What do you view as the biggest contributors to 

CBP’s lengthy time-to-hire rates, especially in rural ports of entry 

like Columbus or Antelope Wells in the district I serve? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I think that there are several things. I 

mean, we certainly talked about the actual hiring process, but I 

45 

know you want to focus on some other things, so I will leave that 

to the side. 

I think that when you think about a potential candidate coming 

for a job, if they are going into a rural area and there aren’t jobs, 

potential jobs for their spouses, I think that creates a difficult situation. A lack of housing. Lack of schools for their children. Areas 

for them to go grocery shopping and do other kinds of shopping. I 

think all of those contribute and make it difficult to find an interesting opportunity for people where they are willing to actually go 

and take those jobs. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Mr. Goodman, did you see any specific challenges in recruiting people in hard-to-fill areas and rural areas? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Our approach in recruiting was to cast a wider 

net than CBP had originally to be able to reach potential candidates who we thought both had an affinity to working in the kind 

of remote locations and who also were most likely to be successful 

in the process. 

So we targeted first veterans, outdoor enthusiasts, but we approached job boards at universities, colleges, criminal justice programs in a range of more rural locations across the Southwest and 

the Midwest. To broaden diversity in the hiring pool we also included, for example, graduates of HBCUs. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Reardon, could you speak more specifically to some of the actions you started to mention in your testimony about the ways we 

can better retain CBP officers and get them to these hard-to-fill 

duty stations? 

Mr. REARDON. Certainly I could. 

I think that it is important to make sure that recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives are used. But I do also want to make 

certain that if we are in a situation where a recruitment incentive 

is being used for somebody to come in as a new hire, what you 

don’t want to do, I don’t believe, is have that situation then a longtime employee earning less money. 

So if you are going to use recruitment incentives, I think it is 

also important to use in concert with that retention incentives. So 

those are important things. 

One other thing that I would add is I have got to believe that 

there are other organizations out there, perhaps the United States 

military would be a good model, where you have folks who are 

going to be in remote locations or in rural locations, and they have 

got to have ways to provide opportunities for families so that people feel like they are a part of something. 

I would also offer one last thing about that. You know, if we are 

going to suggest that it is important to protect the security of our 

country, and I think everyone in this room and across this country 

would agree, then we have got to make certain that we are providing the employees, the number of employees that we need to actually do that, not just give lip service to it. 

I have been testifying now for a couple of years, several years, 

on this very same issue, and it seems as though the number continues to remain at about 3,500. We have got to get these people 

in. 

46 

Because what we are doing is we are putting—because the work 

is out there, and it has got to happen—and so what we are doing 

is we are putting folks in situations, our employees, CBP officers, 

in situations where they are having to work 16-hour days, days on 

end. It is a problem for the family, it is a problem for morale, it 

is a problem for their health, both physical and emotional, and we 

have got to do—and it doesn’t help in terms of protecting our country. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you, Mr. Reardon. 

Just in the last 43 seconds, Mr. Goodman, could you speak to 

what you think CBP and Accenture could have done to best improve the processes based on the lessons learned? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, first, I think we made a number of changes 

that are improving the process that are helpful. I think the introduction of a digital recruiting platform that enables us to better 

target, connect, build a group of applicants is a significant advantage and allows us to do analytics on that recruiting pool to be able 

to help us figure out—— 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. What were your biggest mistakes? 

Mr. GOODMAN. I think the most significant challenge we face in 

this process was in, as Congressman Crenshaw discussed in his 

opening statement, was in the area of polygraphy. That is the biggest obstacle in the process, and it is one that we are still working 

with CBP to figure out how best to navigate. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you, Mr. Goodman. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Let’s expand on that. Let’s expand on the polygraph, since you 

just mentioned it. Do you have anything to add as far as lessons 

learned or ways to improve that process in particular? I just want 

to continue that line of questioning. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Sure. I think the particular challenge that we 

face was in bringing on polygraphers who could be approved to do 

work at CBP, because in addition to requiring NCCA certification 

and having Federal experience, there are a range of training, monitoring, testing requirements that CBP uses that makes it significantly harder to bring on new polygraphers. 

That is the major chokepoint in the hiring process in terms of determining the throughput you can get from the number of applicants. I think those are the set of issues that I think CBP is wrestling with now for the broader applicant pool, apart from the veterans and folks who already have TS/SCI clearances, as you all discussed. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Right, because you can have a TS/SCI clearance 

and a perfect record, it is no guarantee that you will pass a polygraph. 

On the $13.6 million that was spent on the Accenture contract, 

can you detail the work that was done by Accenture up to this 

point that is included in these start-up costs? I am asking you to 

go into a little more detail of what you have just previously described on the advertising campaign, the recruiting campaign that 

you all created. What exists right now, and how is it better than 

what we had before? 

47 

Mr. GOODMAN. So the first thing that exists is a hiring and recruiting system that we have developed and that is now reusable 

for CBP to continue to use. It is that system that we have used to 

develop the talent network of 100,000 applicants with whom we 

can share information about CBP, what the day in the life of Air 

and Marine interdiction officers are, Border Patrol agents, et 

cetera. 

That is also the capability that we can then use to target the specific content that we developed in our digital marketing and advertising campaigns. So we develop new creative content to help attract different and new pools of candidates to the process. That material is also available. 

By the way, through the process, over the course of our contract, 

we have seen that the amount of marketing and advertising spent 

to deliver one applicant has decreased significantly. Now, I can’t attribute all of that benefit to us, but I think what we did significantly helped. 

The third thing we did was to build an applicant care system so 

that, first, our call center and CBP can maintain contact with applicants throughout this long 300-day process and keep them 

warm, if you will, because that is a long time to wait to get a job. 

We built it for our use. CBP is deciding to use it now for its purpose with its recruiters starting next month. 

Then we also developed two separate call centers to be able to 

answer questions in the application process so that people can fill 

out their applications more rapidly and then answer questions and, 

again, help keep people warm along the way. That is the major 

area spent. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Reardon, I will move to you. You were talking about morale, 

and you mentioned the military. In the military we have an MWR 

program. Is there anything similar to that for Border Patrol in 

some of these more remote locations? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I don’t represent employees on the Border 

Patrol, rather in the Office of Field Operations. But I am not aware 

of any programs like that, and that is why I am suggesting that 

it would probably be useful to look at something like that so that 

folks, they feel good about where they are working and what they 

are doing and that they feel confident about bringing their families 

into that environment. I think right now there is a major problem 

with that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. OK. Real quick, are there any details you would 

like to expound upon as far as incentivizing folks to go to some of 

these more remote locations and what these incentives would look 

like? Do you have any ideas that you would like to expound upon? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I mean, I think certainly financial incentives, I mean, that is pretty clear, both to not only recruit them, 

but also in order to retain them. I think there are special pay opportunities that exist that could be looked into. You know, some of 

those places are very difficult to keep people, to get people to want 

to go there and to remain there. So special pay could be looked at, 

as well. 

48 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think you would agree you also need to hire 

people who are willing to go to those places. It does take a certain 

type of person who wants to live in these areas. 

Would you be comfortable, given who you represent, would you 

be comfortable with the bill that we are talking about, which would 

waive polygraphs for law enforcement, military personnel with 

those previous clearances for the hiring process? 

Mr. REARDON. Absolutely. In fact, we have been supportive of 

that sort of legislation in the past. I mean, clearly, I would want 

to see the details, but in theory, based on what you are saying, we 

would be supportive of that, absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. Thank you both. I yield. 

Ms. TITUS [presiding]. Thank you. I will now yield myself 5 minutes to ask questions. Thank you. 

We were admonished a little while ago by one of my colleagues 

to give more love and respect to our brave men and women of the 

CBP, and I don’t know anybody who doesn’t have respect for them. 

But I would ask you, Mr. Reardon, wouldn’t a better way to respect 

them been not to have shut down Government in a fit of pique just 

to deliver a campaign promise so that 27,000 of them would not 

have to go 2 pay periods without receiving a check? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I will tell you, and I think you will see in 

the gallery I have a number of my members here, and they personally went through the 35-day Government shutdown. What I will 

tell you is that, in terms of treating our Federal employees—and 

here specifically we are talking about CBP—with dignity and respect, it would have been a whole lot more positive if they would 

not have been shut down. 

But this extends into also things like them having to face pay 

freezes, or pay increases that are below market, or attacks on their 

health insurance, or attacks on their retirement benefits. All those 

kinds of things play a very significant role here in whether or not 

people are going to be interested in working for the Federal Government, and also here specifically talking about CBP. 

We must make it an attractive place to work. The best recruiting 

mechanism that could exist is current CBP officers, current CBP 

employees, if they were treated with dignity and respect, if they 

were working in a place that they felt valued all the time, they 

would be your best recruiters, and we have got to get back to that. 

Because let me tell you, these folks are proud of the work that they 

do, and they are proud to work for this country. 

Ms. TITUS. We are proud of them, and they are on the front lines 

every day protecting this country, and you are exactly right. 

I would just now ask about the contract that you all have. There 

is a big theme now about privatizing things in Government, run 

Government like a business, business can do it better than Government. Apparently that was kind-of the thinking when you got the 

$297 million contract last November. But you just mentioned in 

your testimony it was very favorable to taxpayers, and I would like 

to go back and look at that. 

You have challenged the IG report, but it seems to me that it 

wasn’t all that favorable to taxpayers. I think how much money 

you have gotten is $20 million, and I know you said some of that 

was calculated for things that can be carried over, like a talent netVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:00 Jul 23, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19OM0307\19OM0307 HEATH
49 

work and an applicant care system. But you have got 35 people, 

if I am right, who now have entered on duty. So you take 35, and 

you divide it into $20 million, now check my math, but I believe 

that is about a half a million dollars per hire. 

Now, do we really think that that is a good investment of taxpayer dollars? Is there really enough left over of what you created 

that makes a difference? I wonder if Mr. Reardon thinks that is 

going to help recruit more folks. What is it that you are left to do, 

since I don’t think now you are really even part of the recruiting 

process? 

Maybe both of you could address that. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Sure. Congresswoman, I think you are 

conflating—your question conflates two separate parts of the contract. 

The first part of the contract was around application processing. 

For that part we were only paid when we hire. For that part, you 

are right, we have 36 who have entered on duty, 56 have accepted 

job offers, and there are 4,000, approximately, who are in various 

stages of the process. More than 3,000 have already passed their 

medical and fitness exams, and more than—— 

Ms. TITUS. But listen, I realize there are two parts of the contract, and some of this you told me that was a bunch of bureaucratic jargon about creative content and care system and networks 

and stuff. I get that. But the fact is you have received about $20 

million, and you have hired 35 people. How do you justify that? 

Mr. GOODMAN. The $19 million that we received was to build systems and capability that is able to be used by CBP on an on-going 

process. 

Ms. TITUS. Right. Well, what could you have possibly built for $19 million that is working so well that we still haven’t been able 

to hire anybody? 

Mr. GOODMAN. We have built a recruiting system, a customer 

care system, two call centers, and lots of content. 

Ms. TITUS. It costs $19 million? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, ma’am. But that capability is what will enable CBP—it is the same capability that leading companies are 

using across America to improve their recruiting process. 

Ms. TITUS. All right. Well, I am going to ask you to come back in 6 months and tell me how well that is working for $19 million. 

Thank you. 

I guess my time is up, so we will now recognize Mr. Higgins from 

Louisiana. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Goodman, you are in a bit of a hot seat today, aren’t you? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Happy to be here, Congressman. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Doing well. Your company properly competed for 

the bid that you received, the contract that you received, sir? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Could you clarify some of these numbers? You stat- ed, I believe, a fee of $40,000 per hire earlier. Did I record that 

right? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Right. That is an average number. It varies 

slightly across the three categories of hires from Air Interdiction officers—— 

50 

Mr. HIGGINS. I would like just to clarify for the American people 

that may tune into this hearing and for our own purposes, what 

is the ratio of applicants to hire? How many do you have to process 

in order to hire one agent? 

Mr. GOODMAN. When we began the process it was over 130 to 1. 

Mr. HIGGINS. What is it now? 

Mr. GOODMAN. My understanding is it is approximately half that. 

In other words, we have been able to reduce—when I say ‘‘we,’’ I 

mean CBP and we together have been able to reduce that number 

by approximately 50 percent. 

Mr. HIGGINS. OK. So 60 to 70 or somewhere in that range. 

The 130 to 1 was quite a challenge, an endeavor to face when 

you took this contract? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. We bear all the costs for all the people who 

don’t make it as part of our—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That was my next question. Who absorbs the expense of the application process for the non-hires? 

Mr. GOODMAN. That would be AFS. That is why this was a favorable structured contract for the Government. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I gave you the opportunity to answer these questions, sir, because as a Constitutional incentive and a rather loud 

protector of the people’s treasury I don’t necessarily agree with the 

bureaucracies and the way things move forward, but you have answered these questions I think honestly. 

I would like to ask Mr. Reardon, as a former police officer and 

a veteran myself, do you believe that the field commanders and supervisors could hire effectively if the hiring process was streamlined and they had the authority to hire and fill the slots that were 

under their command? 

Mr. REARDON. You know, I have not given much consideration to 

managers doing that sort of hiring. 

Mr. HIGGINS. You said managers, but we are talking about law 

enforcement professionals, correct? 

Mr. REARDON. Pardon me? 

Mr. HIGGINS. You used the term ‘‘managers.’’ 

Mr. REARDON. I am referring to the management structure within CBP. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The admin. 

Mr. REARDON. Pardon me? 

Mr. HIGGINS. The administration. 

Mr. REARDON. The administration, right, management within 

CBP. You know, that is something that I would obviously have to 

look into to see whether or not that would work. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Generally speaking, in law enforcement from sea to 

shining sea across the 50 sovereign States, generally speaking, 

sheriffs and their senior staff, their command staff, chiefs of police, 

their command staff, they make their hiring decisions, and they 

manage to keep their slots filled quite effectively. 

So I realize this is a large Federal agency and dealing with the 

bureaucracy that is manifested over a generation here, it is much 

more complex. You are dealing with moving men and women and 

their families to very remote areas. But I am trying to connect 

some dots here. 

51 

Does your company in your contract, do you communicate with 

the commanders in the field at the command and control sectors 

and the supervisors on the ground? Is there a communication process between the law enforcement professionals and your firm’s 

process of hiring to fill the slots that the law enforcement professionals need filled? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Is the question directed to me, Congressman? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOODMAN. So most of our engagement has been with the key 

components of CBP that are themselves focused on hiring and that 

needed to adjudicate key steps along the way, whether it was adjudicate the medical exam or the results of a poly, et cetera, not actively engaged in the field. We did engage—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. I am asking if you are in the process. Congratulations on streamlining the hiring process. We completely support 

that. We have to fill these slots. I am asking, are there communications between your hiring process, the people that handle that, and 

the commanders and supervisors in the field? I have 10 seconds remaining. Please answer. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Let me check with my team and get back to you, 

Congressman. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL [presiding]. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

So a question for you, Mr. Goodman. There is a process, the 

EyeDetect system. What is that? 

Mr. GOODMAN. EyeDetect is a relatively new technology that 

uses eye movement to detect veracity. It is being piloted in a number of agencies, including in the intelligence community, as a precursor, if you will, for a poly to be able to determine whether a— 

to be able to prioritize candidates and make a better determination 

at a much lower cost. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Has this been used in the private sector? 

Mr. GOODMAN. I believe it is—it is really currently in pilot stage. 

It is a new and innovative technology. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So it is a very cutting-edge technology, not terribly 

proven. OK. Were you required to do that or did you—was this 

your idea or was this CBP’s idea? 

Mr. GOODMAN. So as part of our contract we were asked to bring 

forward innovative ideas that could potentially improve the process, and we piloted it at one job fair that we held in Texas really 

to understand how the system would work. It never became—we 

never brought it into production and used it to make determinations on candidates. 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. So you didn’t use it as part of your 12-step 

process that I am looking at here? 

Mr. GOODMAN. No, we simply ran a pilot. 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. So it didn’t work? Is that a fair—I don’t want 

to—— 

Mr. GOODMAN. I wouldn’t draw that conclusion. We ran one—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. You didn’t implement it? 

Mr. GOODMAN. We did not yet implement it, but we ran a pilot. 

52 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. So just one thing I wanted to understand, the 

beginning of this process, which you say is a 300-day process, can 

people begin that in their final year of college at the beginning so 

that when they graduate from college they get a job or do they 

have to begin after they get their degree? What is the timing? Does 

the person need to be completely qualified before they begin the 

process or do they begin the process ahead of time? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Congressman, I am going to need to check and 

get back with you on the specifics, but my understanding is that 

on filling out the entrance exam they need to be able to meet the 

requirements at the time where the entrance—the entrance application, that they need to fill out the application—they need to be 

qualified at the time they are filling out the application. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am surprised you don’t know that. That seems to 

be a pretty basic question. 

So one thing that companies do, and I have a defense contractor 

in my district, L3, and they are beginning to begin SCI exams at 

the beginning of the senior year in college so that by the time the 

person graduates they have got a job, which obviously is a lot easier to retain the person. 

I know that was my experience in the Marine Corps, right, so I 

went to the platoon leaders class in the summers and then I took 

commission when I graduated. So it just made it—you know, rather 

than beginning after I graduate. 

So that seems like a very straightforward step that we could do 

to make this a faster process and get more people. 

So one thing, I have to admit I am staggered at the numbers. So 

you are saying out of 100,000 people applying you are getting 34 

people to take the job? 

Mr. GOODMAN. No, sir. What I noted is that as of December we 

had 36 who had entered on duty and 56 who had accepted. 

What I would note is, as we started the process, this was a 300- 

day process, we began in March 2018. So we wouldn’t have assumed that by December when the 56—the 36 or 56 number is in 

place, we would have had a large number through the process to 

begin with. What we saw was that we projected there would be a 

future problem because of the chokepoint created by polygraphs. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Let me ask this question. The $297 million contract, 

and I noticed it is a 1-year contract with 4 options, is the 297 for 

the first year and then each year thereafter or is that ultimately 

what could be a 5-year contract at 297? 

Mr. GOODMAN. That was the total contract value. That was the 

ceiling for the total contract over a 5-year—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. The ceiling, assuming 4 extensions. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Four extensions and the decisions by CBP to contract for enough hires that would use the entire—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Final question for you. Did you have to—were you 

in competition to get this contract? Were there other people competing? Or was this a no-bid contract? 

Mr. GOODMAN. No, this was a competitive award. 

Mr. TAYLOR. This was a competitive award. Who were your competitors? Who also bid for this? 

Mr. GOODMAN. I don’t know the answer to that, Congressman. 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. Thank you. 

53 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. 

At this point I think we are ready to conclude. So I thank the 

witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their 

questions. 

The Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions 

for witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing 

to those questions. 

Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open for 10 

days. 

Hearing no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN XOCHITL TORRES SMALL FOR BENJAMINE ‘‘CARRY’’ 

HUFFMAN

Question 1a. Ms. Gambler and Mr. Huffman, during our conversations I was glad 

to hear you speak on CBP’s two hiring metrics—the time to hire and the overall 

applicant pass rate. 

What is the time to hire and overall applicant pass rate in the El Paso Sector 

during fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018? Please provide the levels at each station in the sector. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How do these numbers compare to the time to hire and overall applicant pass rate in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Laredo Sector, San Diego Sector, 

Tucson Sector, and Yuma Sector? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. The Congressional district I serve is home to three ports of entry: 

Columbus, Antelope Wells, and Santa Teresa. 

Do these ports of entry have the resources and staff they need? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Please provide current and target staffing levels for CBP officers at 

all 328 ports of entry. Which ports of entry are experiencing the greatest staffing 

shortfalls and highest attrition rates? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. Congress appropriated $58.7 million in fiscal year 2019 to hire 600 

new CBPOs at ports of entry. 

How does CBP plan to recruit and hire the 600 newly-funded CBPOs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Where will the CBPOs be deployed, and what process is CBP using 

to make this determination? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. GAO reported in GAO–18–487 that just 1 to 3 percent of law enforcement applicants complete CBP’s 12-step hiring process and enter on duty. 

What is being done to better target qualified applicants who are likely to move 

successfully through the hiring process and accept a job offer if one is made? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. How is CBP using data analytics to evaluate its recruiting and marketing efforts? What has CBP found to be most effective? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. According to GAO, CBP does not have a systematic process for capturing and analyzing information on why law enforcement officers leave the agency. 

What steps has CBP taken to develop such a process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. How does CBP plan to use this information to inform its future retention efforts? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6. GAO found that Border Patrol has consistently lost more agents 

through attrition than it has been able to gain through hiring. Fiscal year 2018 was 

the first year in at least 5 fiscal years that Border Patrol had a slight net staffing 

gain. However, Border Patrol is nearly 2,000 agents short of its target staffing goal 

and nearly 7,000 agents short when accounting for the 5,000 additional agents mandated by Executive Order 13767. 

Please provide a detailed breakdown of current staffing levels, target staffing levels, and attrition rates at all Border Patrol stations. Which stations are experiencing 

the greatest staffing shortfalls and highest attrition rates? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

56 

Question 7a. CBP has the authority to use a variety of financial incentives, including recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses, to make hard-to-fill positions 

more attractive to CBPOs and BPAs. But, according to GAO, the agency has rarely 

exercised this authority. 

Why is CBP not making better use of recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses to draw officers and agents to remote areas of the border? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7b. Please describe the process by which CBP proposes and approves financial incentives for existing employees and new hires. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7c. Please provide any guidance or policies that set forth the circumstances under which a financial incentive might be offered. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8a. In April 2017, OPM granted CBP direct-hire authority for law enforcement positions, allowing the agency to expedite its typical hiring process by 

eliminating competitive rating and ranking procedures and veterans’ preference. 

This authority is set to expire in April 2019. 

How many CBPOs and BPAs have been hired through this authority since it was 

granted? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8b. Has CBP sought and/or received permission from OPM to extend direct-hiring authority past April 2019. Why or why not? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. According to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector 

General (DHS OIG), Border Patrol has not completed a satisfactory workforce staffing model as required by Congress in 2011. 

What, if any, effort is CBP making to develop and implement a Border Patrol 

staffing model? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR BENJAMINE ‘‘CARRY’’ 

HUFFMAN

Question 1a. In February 2019, CBP launched the ‘‘Fast Track’’ pilot program for 

applicants who agree to complete required hiring steps within set time lines. The 

goal of Fast Track is to reduce time to hire from roughly 300 days to 120 days for 

a certain subset of the applicant pool. 

Which applicants are eligible for Fast Track? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Are there specific steps in the 12-step hiring process that are being 

revised or eliminated to reduce time to hire? If so, please explain. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. What actions is CBP taking to ensure applicant integrity through the 

Fast Track pilot program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1d. How will CBP evaluate program effectiveness? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1e. How many CBPO and Border Patrol Agent (BPA) applicants have 

utilized the Fast Track pilot program to date? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. According to GAO, as of April 2018, CBP leadership was evaluating 

a request from Border Patrol for a 10 percent across-the-board retention incentive 

for all Border Patrol agents at the GS–13 level and below. Additionally, as of May 

2018, CBP was reportedly planning to submit a request to the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) for a $10 per day remote duty location allowance for Border 

Patrol agents at 17 remote duty stations. 

What is the status of these requests? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Please identify all Border Patrol stations where a remote duty location allowance has been approved. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. What analyses, if any, has CBP performed to evaluate the effectiveness of these incentives on recruitment, hiring, and retention? What are the results 

of these analyses? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2d. What, if any, other incentives are being considered to improve recruitment, hiring, and retention of Border Patrol agents in remote duty stations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

57 

Question 3a. GAO found that, in fiscal year 2017, OFO implemented a special salary rate for CBPOs at the Portal, North Dakota port of entry and that no CBPOs 

had departed the remote port since the special salary rate was implemented. OFO 

reportedly is considering additional special salary rates in hard-to-fill locations. 

Which specific ports of entry is CBP considering for additional special salary rates 

and/or other recruitment or retention incentives? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What analyses has CBP performed to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these incentives, and what are the results of these analyses? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. Why did CBP determine that it needed to contract out its hiring responsibilities to accomplish its hiring goals? 

Did CBP not first seek to increase its internal capacity instead? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. Was there any discussion among decision makers to conduct a pilot 

to determine if the scope of the project was feasible before the Accenture Federal 

Services hiring contract was awarded? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. What modifications have been made to CBP’s hiring contract with 

Accenture Federal Services since a partial stop work order was issued in December 

2018? 

What specific activities will Accenture continue to perform? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. How will CBP ensure that it incorporates best practices learned from 

Accenture’s work in the areas that Accenture will continue to contribute to, so that 

at the completion of the contract CBP will be better positioned to perform those activities in house? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5c. What specific activities is Accenture no longer responsible for? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5d. Please provide a copy of the modified contract. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6a. I understand that, in response to the partial stop work order, CBP 

is negotiating a settlement agreement with Accenture Federal Services. 

Please describe the process for reaching this settlement agreement. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6b. What are the terms of the settlement agreement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6c. How will the pay structure of the contract change in response to 

Accenture’s contractual obligations being scaled back? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6d. Please provide a copy of the settlement agreement. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE DINA TITUS FOR BENJAMINE ‘‘CARRY’’ HUFFMAN

Question 1a. Please provide demographic data, including data on the ethnicity/ 

race, gender, and disability/veteran status of law enforcement personnel at Border 

Patrol, OFO, and CBP generally. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. What efforts, if any, is CBP making to foster a more diverse and inclusive workforce? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. Please provide current staffing levels and target staffing levels for 

McCarran International Airport. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What efforts, if any, is CBP making to staff U.S. Customs at 

McCarran International Airport outside of normal operating hours? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN XOCHITL TORRES SMALL FOR REBECCA GAMBLER

Question 1a. Ms. Gambler and Mr. Huffman, during our conversations I was glad 

to hear you speak on CBP’s two hiring metrics—the time to hire and the overall 

applicant pass rate. 

What is the time to hire and overall applicant pass rate in the El Paso Sector 

during fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018? Please provide the levels at each station in the sector. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

58 

Question 1b. How do these numbers compare to the time to hire and overall applicant pass rate in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Laredo Sector, San Diego Sector, 

Tucson Sector, and Yuma Sector? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE CLAY HIGGINS FOR RODOLFO KARISCH

Question 1. Chief Karisch, there are a lot of numbers we keep track of when assessing operational control of our borders. The ones I most frequently hear about 

are ‘‘apprehensions’’ between the ports of entry and ‘‘inadmissibles’’ at the ports of 

entry. However, it is safe to say that we do not catch a lot of what or who crosses 

our border illegally. 

How do you quantify what we are missing? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. What percent of people who enter illegally are we not apprehending? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. What percent of drugs that enter illegally are we not seizing? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. How accurate would you say your ‘‘got away’’ statistics are? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR JOHN B. GOODMAN

Question 1. Please describe in detail the challenges Accenture experienced recruiting and hiring personnel for CBP. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. What modifications have been made to CBP’s hiring contract with 

Accenture Federal Services since a partial stop work order was issued in December 

2018? 

What specific activities will Accenture continue to perform? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What specific activities is Accenture no longer responsible for? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. I understand that, in response to the partial stop work order, CBP 

is negotiating a settlement agreement with Accenture Federal Services. 

Please describe the process for reaching this settlement agreement. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What are the terms of the settlement agreement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. How will the pay structure of the contract change in response to 

Accenture’s contractual obligations being scaled back? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3d. Please provide a copy of the settlement agreement. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ