A New Department of Homeland Security?
by Kerby Anderson

President George W. Bush has proposed that Congress establish a Department of Homeland Security that would absorb the operations of a large portion of the executive branch. Essentially, the president wants to take 169,000 federal employees from 105 executive branch agencies and entities, and reorganize them into four functional divisions under one cabinet officer.

In theory the president's plan makes sense. Gathering all the federal agencies charged with protecting our borders and preventing acts of terrorism within our borders is reasonable. And making one cabinet officer responsible for these agencies provides clear accountability.

The four divisions include: (1) Border and transportation security - Immigration and Naturalization, Customs, Coast Guard, (2) Emergency preparedness - Federal Emergency Management Agency, etc., (3) Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear countermeasures - Civilian Biodefense Research Programs, etc., and (4) Information analysis and infrastructure protection - National Communications Systems, National Infrastructure Protection Center. In addition to these agencies, the Secret Service will also report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The last time something of this magnitude was attempted was in 1947 when President Truman called for the unification of the U.S. defense establishment. At the time, Congress had 41 standing committees in the House and 33 in the Senate, most of whom claimed some jurisdiction over the armed forces. Fortunately, Congress set aside partisan bickering and legislative turf battles and passed the National Security Act in less the six months.

This time, the process may not go as smoothly. Although House and Senate leaders have pledged their support of the plan, a significant number of congressional critics are beginning to surface. Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) calls the reorganization plan a "damage control document" to "divert attention" from intelligence failures prior to September 11. Representative David Obey (D-Wisconsin) believes that "These kinds of slapdash plans are often diversions."

The cover story in Human Events magazine (June 17, 2002) wonders "Will New Department Work?" This new $37-billion agency will get lots of power but may have the wrong focus.

Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey pointed out that if you boarded a plan on September 11 and there were four Muslim men from the Middle East under the age of 35 on board, there was a good chance your plane was going to be hijacked. If there were not four men of that description, there was no chance your plane would be hijacked. His point is that the Department of Homeland Security need to focus on the real threat. Even recent stories about John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla prove his point. These men and all the hijackers had four things in common: They are all young men, they all converted to Islam, they all traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and they all allegedly joined al Queda in making war against America. He believes that the Department of Homeland Security needs a clearly defined mission and an organizational structure to achieve the mission.

According to the White House, the Department of Homeland Security will have the following three missions: (1) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, (2) Reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and (3) Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

Terry Jeffrey believes that the department should achieve these goals with the least amount of government. He, therefore, suggests three straightforward goals: (1) put a moratorium on visas for young Muslim men who fit the terrorist profile, (2) secure the borders so they cannot readily enter the country illegally without a visa, (3) redouble internal enforcement of immigration laws to round up potential terrorists who slip through the cracks.

Unfortunately, that is not happening. The State Department has recently reported that it granted 50,000 new visas to non-Israeli visitors from the Middle East in just the first six months following September 11 (September to March). The borders are not secure, and rounding up potential terrorists has met with marginal success.

The best argument for a Department of Homeland Security is that it will consolidate federal agencies into one department and facilitate communication with what should be clearer lines of accountability. The best argument against such a department is that it will probably increase the size and scope of the federal government.

According to Human Events, "the plan envisions a massive bureaucracy, with huge potential for growth, engaging in far-flung activities that have nothing to do with stopping young radical Muslims terrorists from entering U.S. territory and killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil."

Now that congressional debate has begun on this new Department of Homeland Security, careful attention should be paid to not only the structure but the mission of this new cabinet-level post. Rearranging and consolidating agencies will have little effect if the mission is not clearly defined and the structure developed to achieve that mission.

Go to Worldview Weekend Articles Page