Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

What Happened in 2002

The signing of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the new Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 108-000), was by far the most far-reaching homeland security action of 2002. The new department consolidates 22 homeland security programs from across the federal government.3 This reform was crucial to eliminate the severe fragmentation of efforts that had existed for years.4 Although most homeland security functions are to be transferred to the new department, the Office of Homeland Security will play a vital role in coordinating homeland security policy with the other federal agencies to ensure a unified strategic approach.

Action on the legislation establishing the DHS was delayed for months by special interests unrelated to national security. After the House passed legislation in July (H.R. 5005) that complemented the plan proposed by the President, Senators with close ties to labor unions saw their version of the bill (S. 2452) as an opportunity to roll back presidential authority over federal employees and prevent any limits on collective bargaining on national security grounds. Progress on the Senate bill stalled until mid-term elections, when a compromise bill (H.R. 5710) was passed that balanced union concerns and the President's need for personnel flexibility.

The unnecessarily prolonged debate on Capitol Hill over the DHS highlights the organizational deficiencies in Congress's committee structure. The 88 committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over homeland security policy include 10 appropriations subcommittees, each with authority for a different portion of the homeland security budget. This complex system will dramatically slow any homeland security-related legislation and reduce budget transparency. Because the House, to avoid the jurisdictional quagmire that could emerge from this system, created a temporary Select Committee on Homeland Security5 with sole responsibility for H.R. 5005, it was able to pass its bill quickly. However, the Select Committee, which had jurisdiction only over this bill, was required to disband after the President signed it.

Testimony before the joint inquiry of the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence during the summer and fall of 2002 illustrates that the intelligence community's ability to predict and prevent the attacks on September 11 was inhibited by the compartmentalization of information.6 Intelligence sharing even between offices within the FBI was poor before those attacks. Further, internal failings in the CIA prevented information on the suspected terrorists from being shared promptly with the INS and the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs, which could have prevented the terrorists from entering the country in the first place. The Administration has taken a number of steps to promote better intelligence sharing, including more frequent interaction between members of the intelligence community and exchanges of personnel. Much more remains to be done.

What to Do in 2003

Now that Congress has passed and the President has signed legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, an efficient transition of programs and functions into the new department must become government's top priority in 2003. To do this, Congress and the President must work together to:

• Ensure a smooth transition by allowing the President to fully merge overlapping and redundant programs transferred to the DHS. The success of the transition will depend greatly on how quickly the President is able to merge numerous programs into the DHS. The passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was only the first step in this process; it will likely have to be amended in 2003 to fit emerging needs. It is not enough to shuffle redundant or overlapping programs under the new bureaucracy. Only full consolidation of these programs will provide the necessary unity of effort in core department competencies and foster budgetary savings over time.

Specifically, language that prevents the full merger of the Customs Service and Border Patrol should be removed, and these two agencies, along with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, should be merged to become a single presence at America's points of entry. The Office of Domestic Preparedness, which provides grant money to first responders, should be moved from the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security into the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response to ensure that grant money is tied to operational standards. Such changes will likely require additional legislation once the department is operational.

• Work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a culture compatible with the department's multi-mission nature. Many of the agencies being transferred to the DHS now have non-homeland security missions that Americans rely on for their well-being. Some, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Customs Service, have developed a culture and way of doing business that allows them to use the same resources and procedures for both homeland and non-homeland security missions. The Secretary of DHS should develop this broader multi-mission approach for the entire department, and Congress must refrain from artificially separating these dual roles.
• Reorganize the congressional committee system over homeland security. At a minimum, the current overlap of these 88 committees and subcommittees retards the implementation of homeland security policy by requiring multiple referrals and fostering jurisdictional squabbles.7 It reduces transparency by dividing the homeland security budget among nearly all the appropriations bills. As the House and the Senate finalize rules for the 108th Congress, they should each consolidate their legislative and oversight authority into a new standing committee and appropriations subcommittee for homeland security.
• Establish an intelligence fusion center in the DHS. The best way to solve the problems identified by the joint House-Senate inquiry into the September 11 terrorist attacks8 would be to remove authority for deciding what information should be shared from the agencies that collect it. The DHS should develop and deploy an information technology infrastructure that links and fuses intelligence and law enforcement terrorism databases. Doing so would ensure that all federal, state, and local officials with anti-terrorism roles have access to the information they need to make better and more timely decisions.

Michael Scardaville is Policy Analyst for Homeland Defense in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Experts