Lawmakers debate future of Homeland Security panel

Top lawmakers on Wednesday debated whether House leaders should redraw jurisdictional lines in the chamber next year to make room for a permanent Homeland Security Committee.

"Crafting the right balance between the jurisdictional responsibility of a new Homeland Security Committee and the very legitimate interests of the dozen committees that have historically had jurisdiction over the 22 legacy agencies transferred to Homeland Security is important," said California Republican Christopher Cox, who chairs the temporary Homeland Security panel.

Several committee chairmen and ranking Democrats provided 11 written statements to the Homeland Security Rules Subcommittee on the issue. The subcommittee has a congressional mandate to study and recommend to the full committee -- which must report to the House Rules Committee by early September -- its findings on making the Homeland Security panel permanent.

The Rules panel must make its recommendations to Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., by October. Next January, Hastert -- who supports a permanent panel -- would decide if the panel becomes the 20th permanent committee and what oversight responsibilities it would have.

The Homeland Security panel has held four hearings on the issue, and several former members of Congress and administration officials have testified in favor of a permanent panel. The debate centers on reapportionment of jurisdiction among the panels.

"The dirtiest word in our government is T-U-R-F," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking membert on the Intelligence Committee, who proposed that the Homeland Security Committee become permanent. Congress needs to "reconsider the jurisdiction of older committees" and reorganize to match "the landscape of the 21st century." Harman also said "unique aspects" of the Intelligence panel must remain under its purview.

Other lawmakers bluntly argued against a permanent panel.

"I do not believe the House needs a committee devoted exclusively to homeland security," Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in his testimony. "In fact, I believe that such a committee is likely to prove counterproductive."

Boehlert dismissed supporters' claims that the one-year-old Homeland Security Department is bogged down with requests from 44 committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the department. "Standing committees, like ours, have exercised rigorous oversight without having tied down the department with conflicting demands."

However, Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon, who sits on the Homeland Security Rules subcommittee, showed a chart with all the House panels that have oversight responsibility, saying that every homeland security bill must be referred to the committees, which works against House passage of needed legislation.

For example, he said, a bill to revise the grant formula for emergency responders has been referred to three other panels that want to amend the bill, which means "there is probably not enough time to pass the bill this year."

Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., submitted 68 pages of testimony arguing against relinquishing any of his panel's jurisdiction over homeland security. He said his panel has the necessary experience and expertise.