A year after the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, the House leadership ponders whether it needs a permanent
committee to oversee the department. The answer is yes.
When the President proposed the Homeland Security Act to Congress,
it was referred to 12 standing committees in the House thought to
have jurisdiction over the legislation. That was the right thing to
do. Domestic security missions touch every federal agency and cut
across national programs. Even today, a year after the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security, virtually every federal
department has responsibilities for protecting the nation.
Safeguarding the lives and property of Americans remains a mission
that cuts across the federal executive and correspondingly the
committees of Congress. Officials in the Department of Homeland
Security will always find themselves-and rightly so-scurrying from
committee room to committee room, testifying on their efforts to
integrate a plethora of activities into a coherent, integrated
national structure of systems and programs.
While security remains a cooperative government effort, we needed a
dedicated Homeland Security Department. The rationale for the
initiative paralleled the thinking behind the formulation of the
1947 National Security Act, consolidating key assets into one big,
powerful organization and creating the means to orchestrate that
department's efforts with other federal activities. Large,
centralized organizations have drawbacks, the most obvious being
the problems encountered in managing a vast bureaucracy. But big
organizations can also have great strengths, providing unity of
purpose, a wealth of capabilities, and economies of scale, and
fostering a common institutional culture and practices that build
trust and confidence and facilitate coordinated action.
The department now also faces the same challenges that confronted
the Pentagon in 1947. In terms of efficiencies and improved
coordination, the low-hanging fruit of corralling over 180,000
employees into one agency has been picked. What is left to be done
is the hard work, the nuts and bolts of building a real
department-implementing human capital, acquisition, and information
technology programs; building security systems that match the
national strategy; and standing watch every day against terrorist
attacks. Oversight of these activities requires standing committees
with the expertise and experience to see the big picture and dig
into the details.
The House Select Committee on Homeland Security has already
demonstrated that there could be value added in consolidating
oversight in a single committee. They've held productive hearings
and rapidly assembled a capable staff with the energy, expertise,
and dedication that make for good congressional oversight. Last
week, the full committee passed out H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter
Funding for First Responders, a necessary piece of legislation and
a great example of the kind of leadership needed from a permanent
oversight committee.
The global war against terrorism will be a long, protracted
conflict. We need a Department of Homeland Security that is built
and run to protect Americans today, tomorrow, and ten and twenty
years from now. We need a Congress that is properly organized to
support this effort. Leaving jurisdiction for the department's
homeland security programs fragmented among a dozen committees runs
counter to the intent behind the Homeland Security Act of 2002:
either merge functions, change cultures, and focus the federal
government on homeland security or turn the initiative over to the
terrorists.