TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmaker probes need to streamline Homeland Security oversight
Possibly provoking a major fight between powerful committee chairmen, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., has asked the Government Accountability Office to review whether Congress' oversight structure is negatively affecting homeland security activities.
Thompson said he is open to revisiting whether Congress should undertake a reorganization to consolidate its oversight of the Homeland Security Department. But he said he wants GAO to report back before any legislation is crafted.
House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., said a GAO report might be a good idea, but is not necessary. He is already convinced that the congressional oversight structure is an impediment to homeland security and needs to be overhauled.
"We know the impact it has," King said. "This is a major issue that has to be addressed ... I feel very strongly about it."
He said the duplication of appearances at congressional hearings by Homeland Security officials is a major problem and is damaging the department's ability to carry out its duties.
The department was created four years ago by merging 22 agencies. But powerful committees and their chairmen have been reluctant to relinquish control over parts of the department that fall within their jurisdiction.
Department officials report to about 88 committees and subcommittees, according to department statistics.
"Obviously there are a number of jurisdictional challenges to go through other committees," Thompson said in an interview.
In a letter he sent Monday, Thompson asked GAO to determine the exact number of committees department officials have appeared before in the last three years, and how that compares to officials from other federal departments and agencies.
"In essence, a controversy seems to exist concerning whether the current congressional oversight framework adversely impacts the department," Thompson wrote. "While I am not requesting that you resolve this controversy, I am seeking an explanation of the unique jurisdictional situation confronting the department and whether that situation may play a role in the department's position on the GAO high risk list."
One of the 9/11 Commission's key recommendations was that Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight for homeland security affairs.
Although Democrats campaigned last year on a pledge to enact all of the commission's recommendations, they did not require congressional consolidation in the recently approved 9/11 bill.
The bill was sent to President Bush on Wednesday, but passage was delayed for months by jurisdictional disputes between committees.
When Republicans controlled Congress, they created the House Homeland Security Committee and made it a permanent standing committee. They also merged most of the oversight in the Senate under the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. They never fully fulfilled the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, either.
"While the House of Representatives has established the Committee on Homeland Security and granted this committee the status of a standing permanent committee in accord with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, this committee is not the single and principal point of oversight and review for the Department of Homeland Security," Thompson wrote.
"Meanwhile, departmental officials have indicated that oversight by a host of congressional entities impedes their ability to perform their core functions and accomplish the integration and transformation of these 22 separate agencies into one unified department," he added.
COMMENTS
- It sounds like nothing has improved since all the agencies have been swallowed up by DHS. What has improved? Security? Is the American citizen safer? Has it improved responsiveness? American Taxpayer Posted August 14, 2007 9:16 AM
- Congress has basic work to do before considering revision to its Committee structure. That is very important but puts the cart before the horse. Many statutes vesting authority exercised in DHS are delegated from the President or assigned directly to organizations in DHS. Congress needs to have CRS or GAO document how Congress has vested legal authority in DHS whether by Presidential delegation or directly and determine whether that authority should be placed directly in the Secretary DHS, the President, or some subordinate unit in DHS. A famous McKinsey study in the 50's concluded that for emergency authority and crisis management, authority should be vested directly in the President, not a cabinent or sub-cabinent agency. This led to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958. If a new study reveals the same conclusion then many DHS authorities should be vested in the President and then delegated by Executive Order. Conversely, many of the DHS authorities might more properly be vested in subordinate units in DHS, three of which have statutory protection, including (1) FEMA; (2) the Secret Service; and (3) the United States Coast Guard. Finally, Congress does need to review the large number of personnel in DHS with guns and badges, perhaps as many as 65,000, andmost of whom may retire after 20 years. It appears that these persons are beginning to dominate upper management positions throughout DHS and making DHS into a largely second career agency. Many studies have indicated that second career agencies are dominated by characteristics such as bureaucratic unresponsiveness and unwillingness to try new approaches to ongoing duties and administrative challenges thereby making the whole organization more sluggish in response to new challenges. Congress also has been unable to enact a unified authorization bill thus rendering the authorization and oversight of DHS a nullity since its formation in 2003, and leaving to ad hoc oversight the appropriators acting as authorizing members. This also is destructive to a coherent DHS and Homeland Security effort. This too should be studied by GAO. DHS has not helped Congress by failing to document its internal delegations as required by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1947,as amended, and the Federal Register Act of 1934, as amended. William R. Cumming Posted August 9, 2007 7:39 PM
- Within DHS is the morphed agency of ICE. When ICE was created they merged for INS and US Customs into one. Although the idea may have been with good intentions the outcome is disasterous. They essentially made us the jack of all trades and the master of none. New agents are coming to the field without the knowledge to enforce our immigration laws. This is due to the once 12 week academy just for immigration law training now being taught in 12 weeks for both Customs and Immigration Law. Legacy Customs guys are in worst shape because they have had little to none training. The fact of the matter is once the resources of legacy INS personnell drys up this agency will be in serious trouble. The way to correct this within ICE is under the office of investigations create an office of customs and a office of immigration. Allow agents to apply for one or the other and become masters of there trade. Chuck Posted August 8, 2007 9:11 AM
