 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
Homeland Security Turf Wars
by Greta Wodele
In the 109th Congress, Homeland Security Department officials will report to two committees in both the House and Senate with primary oversight of their mission. That decision represents the first sweeping change to congressional jurisdiction in decades and the implementation of a key recommendation of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But some officials argue that the changes fail to meet the 9/11 Commission's proposal, which called for one House and one Senate committee with exclusive jurisdiction, because powerful committee chairmen in both chambers were unwilling to relinquish precious turf. And they argue that the changes will continue to muddy congressional oversight for homeland security policy, including technology-related issues like cyber security and research and development.
"Multiple [House] committees will remain responsible for overseeing parts of the department, leaving none ultimately responsible for holding it to account," the commission concluded after the House changed its rules last week. "Similar conditions continue to exist in the Senate. Congress' reluctance to reform its internal structures means that [the Homeland Security Department] will still be reporting to scores of committees and subcommittees."
Landscape For The 109th Congress
The 9/11 Commission found last year that Homeland Security Department officials reported to 88 committees and subcommittees in Congress, and an expert witness said that structure was "perhaps the single-largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development."
In reaction to such criticisms, the House voted 220-195 to create a permanent Homeland Security Committee with redefined jurisdiction. The Senate, meanwhile, overhauled its oversight structure of homeland security in October by renaming the Governmental Affairs Committee as the Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee.
In the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., stared down a few powerful committee chairmen who adamantly oppose relinquishing turf to the Homeland Security Committee for overseeing security policy, the department's internal administration and areas related to the department, such as border and port security, intelligence gathering, and research and development.
The rules changes give the Homeland Security Committee oversight of the Transportation Security Administration, which involves aviation, rail and maritime security. The panel also will have authority over the department's largest border-control system, US-VISIT. The biometric system tracks foreign visitors entering and exiting the country at U.S. airports and seaports, and the department plans to expand it to the 50 busiest land ports this month.
But opponents of changes in both the House and Senate were able to protect some of their turf.
"[The proposal] draws to the new committee only jurisdiction directly related to our defense against terrorism," California Republican David Dreier, who chairs the House Rules Committee, wrote last week in a letter to House colleagues. "Thus, it creates a primary committee while recognizing the other legitimate oversight roles of existing committees. It acknowledges the expertise and experience residing in other committees and leaves with them jurisdiction that may have a homeland security implication but not a direct policy relationship."
And in the Senate, the renamed Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee has authority over only 38 percent of the department's 39 billion budget and 8 percent of its 175,000 employees. During debate on the issue on the Senate floor, John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a farce that senators were naming a Homeland Security committee but making only shallow reforms to jurisdictional boundaries. The Transportation Security Administration remains under the Senate Commerce Committee.
The House Power Struggle
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., successfully retained power over immigration policy and non-border-enforcement issues. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., protected his turf over revenue generated by customs. And Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, scored a victory by retaining control over the Coast Guard, federal emergencies, automobile safety and rail security, as well as over the purse strings for transportation-related trust funds.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, added a provision that would give his panel and other committees continued jurisdiction over cyber-security issues. Hastert had agreed to shift jurisdiction over cyber security to the Homeland Security Committee, but Barton struck that language in a Republican Conference meeting.
The House Science Committee will retain jurisdiction over research and development, a critical issue to the technology industry. Energy and Commerce Committee also still has power over cyber security and policies related to emergency responders. And the Financial Services panel retains its turf over money laundering and terrorist financing.
Homeland Security Chairman California Republican Christopher Cox, R-Calif., said his panel would be in charge of counter-terrorism missions involving cyber security. Cox, who wanted language added that would give his panel "exclusive" power over the Homeland Security Department, said he received assurances from Hastert's office that legislative referrals would be interpreted in Cox's favor.
Cox said his panel would have about 50 percent to 75 percent authority over counter-terrorism-related legislation.
Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon said the changes to House jurisdiction are adequate but argued that "legislative history" language added to pacify some committee chairmen would complicate the process for referring legislation to House committees. "[GOP leaders] don't want to usurp other committees," he said.
"Where the rubber meets the road is in legislative referrals," one House aide said. Hastert will make the decision about what committees have primary jurisdiction over legislation and what other committees can debate bills before bringing them to the House floor for votes.
Time For Adjustment
Critics argue that the more time Homeland Security officials spend on Capitol Hill testifying before numerous committees, the less time they have to research and develop technologies, and implement laws and regulations to protect key infrastructure and assets. Critics also said the jurisdictional structure translates into many legislators having little expertise and accountability for robust oversight of the department.
On the technology front, critics specifically question the provision retaining the Science Committee's jurisdiction over R&D issues, contending that it could confuse oversight for the Homeland Security Department's science and technology division.
Under the House proposal, furthermore, the Homeland Security panel would have authority over activities to protect critical infrastructure sectors such as transportation systems. But legislation addressing the "protection of a particular sector" such as railroads would "lie with the committee otherwise having jurisdiction over that sector," the House rules read. The rules also state that "nothing in this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting the authority of any other committee to study and review homeland security activities."
The overlapping authority reflects the recommendation of Thomas Mann, a government analyst at the Brookings Institution. He testified in May 2003 that "keeping shared jurisdiction in Congress can help make the dual functions work in the new department" and that the 22 agencies reorganized under the department in 2002 have traditional activities, such as the Coast Guard's responsibility to facilitate transportation and water safety. "If homeland security is the only consideration, these functions can get lost or perverted along the way," Mann testified.
He argued that the Homeland Security Committee should incrementally obtain new jurisdiction so it "can absorb areas gradually and all the relevant committees can adjust to change."
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
