Politics vs. Policy

To improve management at Homeland Security, Congress is urged to streamline oversight.

In January 2007, after years of wrangling with Republicans over national security issues and debating the findings of the 9/11 commission, Democratic leaders took control of Congress, pledging to fully implement the commission's recommendations. And they mostly did, with one notable exception. That was the recommendation that Congress "create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security." It turns out that it's easier to re-organize hundreds of thousands of federal employees, dozens of bureaucracies and the entire intelligence establishment than it is for members of Congress to relinquish the perks of power that come with membership on key committees.

The 9/11 commission was under no illusions about how thorny the issue of congressional reform would be. "Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. . . . Few things are more difficult to change in Washington than congressional committee jurisdiction and prerogatives. To a member, these assignments are almost as important as the map of his or her congressional district." And they're apparently as hard to change as the boundaries on those maps.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., notes that in the spring of 2007, when the House Homeland Security Committee, of which he is a member, sent a Homeland Security authorization bill to the floor, a number of provisions were stripped from the legislation because other committees with jurisdiction over the agency had other priorities. "Some of those provisions would have authorized Secret Service functions, improved the security of student exchange visa programs, strengthened enforcement of maritime alien smuggling [laws], authorized establishment of animal disease research facilities, and strengthened lobbying and ethics standards. Ironically, one provision simply expressed the sense of Congress that it needed to consolidate oversight jurisdiction, and they stripped that out," he says.

Rogers believes Congress should oversee Homeland Security much the way it oversees Defense, where lawmakers conduct oversight primarily through four panels: the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which craft annual authorization bills that guide operations at Defense, and the House and Senate Appropriations committees, which fund the agency.

"As a member of the [House Armed Services Committee], I've witnessed on a daily basis how effective the model is," Rogers says. "The current Homeland Security process is the exact opposite."

Paul A. Schneider, deputy secretary of Homeland Security, says the department has productive relationships with the House and Senate Appropriations committees, both of which established permanent subcommittees on homeland security in 2003. "The relationship between our department and those two appropriations subcommittees is robust, sound, efficient, and in our view that's how business ought to be done with Congress," he says.

The problem is with oversight, Schneider says. "There really is no single point of entry into the House and Senate for authorization-type issues, despite the fact that both chambers have dedicated homeland security committees. A multitude of all these other committees continue to exercise oversight and control over pieces-and I emphasize pieces-of the department and its components," he says. The root of the problem is turf, he adds, noting that various committees and subcommittees formerly held jurisdiction over the 22 agencies that were combined to create Homeland Security.

"The bottom line is there's no clear authorization policy direction that's being provided by the Congress," Schneider says. "In my view, and I know I speak for the secretary and the leadership of the department as well as all of the operating components, this abundance of jurisdictional interest by the Congress has hindered us from achieving what really ought to be comprehensive, integrated legislative goals."

As it is, 86 committees and subcommittees conduct oversight of the Homeland Security Department, often with conflicting priorities and political agendas. "I can assure you when [Homeland Security officials are] called before the Judiciary Committee or the Government Reform Committee or the Transportation Committee, they're not getting a sense of direction, they're getting criticized," Rogers says.

The Republicans weren't any better when they controlled Congress, Rogers concedes.

"This is truly a bipartisan problem," says David M. Olive, a homeland security lobbyist and a principal in the Washington-based government relations firm Olive, Edwards & Cooper LLC. "The current oversight problem was created when the Republicans controlled the House" and failed to deal with it, Olive says.

When Democrats made a big deal about implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations after they took control, they only highlighted the problem by their unwillingness to address congressional reform, he says.

Olive excoriated lawmakers for the chaos in Homeland Security oversight in an op-ed in The Hill newspaper earlier this year. "Remember the pledge to end pork barrel spending? With 86 different committee chairmen all looking to get a piece of the DHS grant pie, everybody is grabbing and nobody is accountable," he wrote.

Olive is especially critical of the requirement that Homeland Security screen 100 percent of cargo entering the United States, a measure many believe is unrealistic. "It takes away from a risk-based approach to determining vulnerabilities, and it is a huge economic burden with almost no benefit," he says. But to engage members of Congress on the issue, Olive says he must deal with multiple committees, including Homeland Security, International Relations, Energy and Commerce, Transportation and others. "No single committee has responsibility," he says.

Olive, Rogers and Schneider all participated in a discussion of the issue sponsored by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation in late July. James Carafano, assistant director of the think tank, has long advocated congressional consolidation of Homeland Security oversight. The system results in conflicting guidance for the department and "a plethora of unrealistic mandates," he says.

Consolidating jurisdiction over Homeland Security and passing an annual authorization bill that provides guidance-something Congress has failed to do since the department was created in 2002-would go a long way toward demonstrating that Congress takes its responsibilities seriously, Carafano says.