TOPICS

Four years after the 9/11 commission recommended that Congress create a "single, principal point of oversight and review," 86 congressional committees and subcommittees oversee the Homeland Security Department. That's about 80 too many, in the view of several officials with expertise in DHS operations.

"Congress has protected its prerogatives and privileges at the expense of oversight," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., at a forum on Wednesday sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. Since the start of the 110th Congress, Homeland Security officials have testified at 359 hearings and conducted 4,300 briefings for congressional committees -- most for committees other than the House and Senate homeland security panels.

With so many committees exercising jurisdiction over various aspects of Homeland Security's mission, the department is put in the impossible position of having to satisfy competing and sometimes conflicting demands from Congress, said Rogers, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight. In addition, the demands of reporting to so many committees have put an untenable administrative burden on the department, he said.


RELATED STORIES

"You don't just show up for a hearing; it takes a tremendous amount of preparation," said Paul Schneider, DHS deputy secretary. He said during his first 10 months on the job, he was called to testify nine times. Several times his office sought to provide another witness with greater expertise on a given subject, but those requests were denied, he said.

The department wants and needs oversight, Schneider said, but the current congressional structure significantly hinders management. Schneider is no stranger to working with Congress. During four decades of federal service -- most of it at the Defense Department, along with a stint as senior acquisition executive at the National Security Agency -- he developed an appreciation of the importance of effective oversight.

But in the case of Homeland Security oversight, he said, "I think any five people in this room could come up with something better than what we've got."

John Gannon, the first staff director for the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, the precursor to the current House committee, said the creation of the Homeland Security Department was the most significant transfer of political power in government since the1947 National Security Act created the Defense Department.

The inability of Congress to streamline its own operations to reflect changing national security requirements has significantly hurt the department's mission, according to Gannon. "It's a leadership issue" shared by both the White House and Congress, he said.

In September 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described the burden of such fractured oversight in a 16-page letter to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, at King's request.

"Literally thousands of congressional requests -- from many different committees and subcommittees for hearings, briefings, reports and other information -- consume a very significant amount of DHS senior leadership time, which must be balanced with meeting operational mission demands," Chertoff wrote.

DHS doesn't keep track of redundant hearings, but they are frequent. As one example, Chertoff cited 2006 department testimony on worksite enforcement before five different congressional committees: the Senate Judiciary Committee panel on immigration, border security and citizenship; the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee panel on regulatory affairs; the House Ways and Means Committee; the House Small Business Committee panel on workforce, empowerment and government programs; and the House Education and Workforce Committee.

In 2007, Homeland Security was required to provide more than 530 reports to Congress. "Easily well over 100 reports annually require an average of more than 300 man hours to produce," Chertoff wrote, with many others consuming "a bare minimum of 100 hours prior to transmittal." And that doesn't include the time spent responding to several hundred audits and investigations conducted by the Government Accountability Office since 2004.

A 2004 white paper published jointly by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Business Executives for National Security found that by comparison, the Defense Department, which is much larger than Homeland Security, answers to 36 congressional committees or subcommittees, with more than 80 percent of oversight falling to six of those.

"Complaints by Congress that the DHS is not doing enough to implement policy priorities relate back to erratic congressional oversight and conflicting demands on DHS directorates," stated a policy paper by Jena Baker McNeill, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

"The current system is not based on sound management principles. Instead, it imposes confusing and burdensome priorities and directives to the point that congressional oversight threatens the DHS mission," McNeill wrote.

COMMENTS

  • This is a very belated reply to Tipoff's message. Where I get it from relates to the presentencing memo prosecutors submitted to the court for Mitchell Wade's sentencing and information reported by Seth Hettena in his 11/27/08 blog. The Abramoff and Cunningham probes have an underlying common thread of Russia. As a mutual shareholder in Lockheed with Putin's St. Petersburg crime gang and a shareholder worried about Halliburton's energy contracts and pacifying Putin, Cheney is involved and another common thread of Russia. Remember, too, that Cheney was close with Abramoff. His office's contract to Wade in the same value as the boat Wade purchased for Cunningham the month after the VP office supplies contract links Cunningham to Cheney (as did an AP article apearing in WP in 8/05 re 2 meetings: 1/02 with Cunningham, Cheney, Wilkes, Foggo and Putin's agents and the same group in 7/03). Finally, I head federal operations for the inventor of the tech std called "smart wallet" by NIST. It's the world's only next-gen ID and commerce credential. We were told by a Putin agent in 1/02 that everyone who needed to be bought in the US to force us to become Russian and accept a 100 % financing package had been. The rest of this story you have to wait for until the grand jury brings indictments. Stewart Baker by the way was the other signature on the NSA Black Ops contracts. Schneider was SAO, and Baker General Counsel at NSA. The duo tried to abuse the illicitly collected images to have me incarcerated in 2/06. I was keeping the company financially afloat. Abuse one's power to incarcerate the financier and the company becomes forced to accept new Russian offers. Financing package offer went for 19 months. Then there were 2 later buyout offers. One other thing, 911 was a mob scam so the grand jury's results will paint a picture of Baker and Schneider being 911 insiders.
  • Now, I doubt few folks ‘round here think I’m a Shrub fan and most know I tend to rant about the PATRIOT Act and FISA; but Dawn, you’re making me look like a Good-Time Charlie. I’m really not criticizing because with the current administration we don’t need much help in the surveillance of our own people. We seem to be doing just fine in the “Sneaking and Peeking” department. I’m just wondering where you made that Kremlin connection. I saw your quotes and wondered at their origins also. Any references available with those fries?
  • "There are other White House spy programs the president doesn't know about."...former US Attorney General Gonzales in 2/06 when referencing the NSA Black Ops that VP Cheney controls. These programs involve installing cameras into patriot's bedrooms and areas within their homes where they dress. The programs have not a thing to do with national security, and in fact, were done for the Kremlin's controlling crime gang to any patriot controlling a company that dared to turn-down Kremlin financial offers! Images collected from these programs are posted to the internet in attempts to frame patriots for perverse felonies. Paul Schneider is the DHS' highest ranking PERVERT. The illicit surveillance programs were in effect by 11/02. Schneider was put into the NSA Senior Acquisition post in 10/02 because he would sign-off on the illicit contracts awarded to defense suppliers.