Lawmakers Focus In on DHS Staffing, Border Issues
This week, lawmakers across two House Committees placed a spotlight on issues at the Department of Homeland Security. In the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Inspector General (IG) Joseph Cuffari was called to testify about the impact of details to the Southern Border on workplace readiness and wellbeing. In the House Judiciary Committee, lawmakers questioned a panel of witnesses about whether the Biden Administration is doing enough to enforce immigration laws.
First, in the oversight committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, the Borer, and Foreign Affairs, IG Cuffari was asked to speak on a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on staffing challenges impacting DHS. IG Cuffari emphasized OIGs oversight of border activity, noting both himself and senior IG staff have visited both the Southern and Northern border several times. During these visits, IG Cuffari reported consistent concern from law enforcement personnel about constating details to the Southern Border creating “turmoil” in the lives of law enforcement. IG Cuffari told Subcommittee Chair Glenn Grotham (R-WI) that these concerns prompted the report and were affirmed by its findings.
Central to the report and the hearing, was DHS’s use of 30 to 60 day deployments of personnel across the country to the Southern Border. While some of the details are voluntary, IG Cuffari noted that some cases management employees were “voluntold” to accept the deployment
IG Cuffari told Chairman Grotham and the Subcommittee members that the details create resource gaps in the now vacant offices. IG Cuffari recommended DHS hire an outside entity to assess its staffing issues; however, IG Cuffari noted that DHS disagreed with that recommendation.
Several members focused on the type of work detailed law enforcement are asked to do. IG Cuffari noted that the details pull law enforcement away from the type of work outlined in their job descriptions and often forces them to perform more social work than law enforcement work.
Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-CA) criticized the reports methodology, noting that it was based on a non-statistical survey and has a low response rate, which Rep. Garcia compared to a “Twitter poll.” The Ranking Member noted that the subcommittee recently met with a Border Patrol Sector Chief who explained, “if you speak to 20 different agents you will get 20 different responses,” underscoring the importance of data reliability to ensure the survey is representative.
Several other members raised concerns about IG Cuffari’s credibility, including raising a Project on Government Oversight report urging for IG Cuffari’s removal and noting that IG Cuffari is currently under investigation by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Turning some attention to the Northern Border, Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) advocated for additional funding allocations to the U.S.-Canadian border to assist with trade issues. “If you like bread, you like what goes on between North Dakota and Canada. If you like hamburgers, you like what goes on between North Dakota and Canada,” Rep. Armstrong emphasized.
Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) took a different approach, arguing that Congress–not the executive branch–is responsible for the current immigration climate. Rep. Moskowitz emphasized the need for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
The role of Congress and the Executive was subject to heated debate in the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing entitled, “The Border Crisis: Is the Law Being Faithfully Executed?” This hearing featured testimony from:
- Chad Wolf, former Acting Secretary of DHS and current Executive Director and Chief Strategy Officer for the America First Policy Institute
- Joseph Edlow, former Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and current Managing Member of the Edlow Group
- Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation
- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council
Wolf, Edlow, and Bradbury argued the Biden Administration has abdicated its responsibility under law to secure the homeland.
For example, Bradbury argued that Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides specific procedures for those applying for asylum and limits use of parole authority, particularly against refugees. Through these actions, Bradbury testified that “President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have, in effect, arrogated to themselves a sweeping power to suspend key provisions of the immigration laws they are entrusted with faithfully enforcing.”
Conversely, Reichlin-Melnick argued that the Biden Administration’s policies are a legal act of prosecutorial discretion. Reichlin-Melnick argued every administration must make trade offs based on resources, pointing out that Congress has never appropriated enough funds for all of the mandates written into the INA.
Significant discussion centered around whether the administration did enough to ensure immigration laws could be enforced following the conclusion of Title 42 authority.