Homeland Security Should Be a Goal,
Not a Bureaucracy
by James Hall, Associate Editor
June 12, 2002
"Leaning Left"
-sm.jpg)
.jpg)
"I
wish we'd all been together on this last fall. We might have had it all in place
by now." -- Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT, right) on the last-minute announcement
of a Homeland Security Bill by the Bush administration.
The announcement of the creation of a vast new Department of Homeland Security with 169,000 employees from 22 separate agencies and a $37 billion-plus annual budget is hardly the panacea it is being portrayed as. Yes, it increases our focus on the problem and gives the former Office of Homeland Security new power in Washington by giving it a large budget, a seat on the cabinet, and a direct chain of command to important federal agencies.
But it lets other federal departments off the hook by giving them someone to point the finger of blame at when things go wrong. (Wait and see.) And it does nothing to address the intelligence failures that led to 9/11. We must make homeland security more a goal than a bureaucratic institution--it must be a national priority and the focus of many of our federal agencies and departments, not just those that might fall under the DHS umbrella.
On the plus side, giving the Office of Homeland Security a promotion to cabinet level and giving its leader authority over federal organizations with a similar focus makes a whole lot of sense. That was recognized months ago by some in Congress, and some Senators and Congressmen have been working together for a while in a bipartisan fashion to do just that--over the objections of the Bush administration that said in March that a cabinet-level office "wasn't necessary."
Combining security organizations with similar purposes, like the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service is a good idea. Adding the brand new Transportation Security Administration and the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center, which provides computer security for power plants, telecommunications centers, banks and important government installations also makes much sense, since each of these agencies sharpens the focus of security for our borders and our nation's most sensitive installations.
But not every agency suggested by the president for DHS makes the same degree of sense. Splitting up the National Institutes of Health and separating research on bioterrorist diseases from other infectious diseases makes no sense from a research and development point of view--science doesn't work well that way. Folding in California's Lawrence Livermore facility, which mostly develops nuclear devices, makes very little sense, either.
FEMA, the emergency agency that might respond to a terrorist attack (as it did in New York on 9/11), spends much more time dealing with natural disasters than terror attacks. And absorbing the INS into homeland security means that all issues of immigration and citizenship would now be handled by what is essentially a security agency, instead of under a law enforcement agency like the Justice Department. Taking the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from the Department of Agriculture would make DHS responsible for the eradication of pests like the boll weevil as well as terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
It's political flimflam to argue that creating one new federal "super department" solves all the problems of homeland security. The DHS will be entirely dependent on the CIA, NSA, and FBI for its intelligence. The State Department will continue to issue visas for visitors and immigrants. The Postal Service will continue to inspect and investigate potential terrorist packages in the mails. So why not leave federal agencies like Customs and the INS whose main purpose is something other than homeland security under their current departments and let the DHS partner with them on security issues that they share in common?
.jpg)
Belatedly
realizing their mistake, the Bush people have finally come forward with a plan
to elevate the importance of homeland security. And they've finally made available
to Congress Tom Ridge (left), the Office of Homeland Security director who was
until now not allowed to testify before Congress. But because of the Bush penchant
for secrecy, this reorganization plan was made a by a handful of senior Bush
advisors without expert input from the executive and legislative branches of
government.
And because it was advanced so late in the legislative calendar year, only about three months of an already-jammed calendar remain to consider the legislation this year. The only thing that may help its quick adoption are that Senator Lieberman and his allies and Congress's GSA have already been considering what form a Department of Homeland Security ought to take.
It's also foolish to argue, as the president did, that combining these agencies can be done without spending any additional money. Undoubtedly it will cost more to equip these agencies to work together and do the new job and new role they've been given.
Regardless, Congress should not be stampeded into creating an unwieldy behemoth that would take years to settle in and organize itself. A leaner, meaner Department of Homeland Security, dominated by security-oriented agencies and a security-minded mission, can do its job better than a bloated entity that must also worry about boll weevils, vaccine production, and illegal aliens who aren't terrorists. Any organization created for homeland security must quickly find its feet and hit the ground running.
And the rest of the federal government must know that homeland security remains a priority for them, too. ***
© 2002 James Hall
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer