The President's proposal on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security was formally presented to both the U.S. Senate Government Affairs Committee and House of Representatives Government Reform Committee by former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge in hearings that were held in Washington, D.C. on June 20, 2002. The proposal has received mixed reviews by members of Congress. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who proposed a similar bill (S.2452) on May 2, 2002, and Representative Dan Burton (R-IN) both voiced their support for the creation of a cabinet level department with the power of an executive branch organization. However, many representatives questioned “problem areas,” particularly related to the details, of the proposal. For example, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) adamantly pointed out flaws in this plan, saying, “…reorganization on a grand scale is needed, but this proposal is too bold in scope and too brief in detail.” 1

Key concerns centered on how the new DHS would collect and/or analyze intelligence information and how the proposed Department would work with the CIA and the FBI. According to Senator Thompson, the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence information is “the area of most immediate concern…more than reorganization…in the battle against terrorism.” Mr. Ridge assured concerned members that most of the information collected for the DHS will be gathered by the CIA and the FBI, but that analysis will be a shared activity. He emphasized that the creation of the DHS and a special intelligence clearinghouse will allow more people from varying backgrounds to analyze the information than the current system and, contended that analysis, thus, would be clearer and more quickly disseminated. Interest in this subject was high among the press and other attendees at the hearings. Discussion was still ongoing when time was called. Information-sharing among the federal government and state and local government agencies was another issue discussed at length. Local and state government agencies, especially fire and police departments, typically are first responders. Thus, one senator questioned whether the right people will be getting pertinent information in time to handle situations in the best way possible. Mr. Ridge explained that he has contacted local officials and is working together with them to facilitate information exchange whenever possible.

Civil service employment issues were also discussed at length. According to the proposal, certain federal employment benefits for DHS employees, including the right to join a union, will be suspended for an unlimited time. Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI) were concerned that the 170,000 federal workers potentially involved in the proposed reorganization might lose many of the benefits that they currently enjoy. Other representatives expressed concern that many employees might flee government jobs as a result of the increased emphasis on the “merit system,” which in turn might encourage racial profiling and other forms of discrimination, as well as the loss of civil service protection. Mr. Ridge assured the members of Congress that any discrimination will be investigated thoroughly and any and all procedures will be used to safeguard the rights of the federal workers.

The issue of border security and transportation services, including the ability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to keep track of visa-holders who enter the U.S. was hotly debated. Committee members acknowledged that the U.S. government currently did not have the appropriate resources to track visa-holders. However, many in Congress want to see a proposal encompassing some sort of action that will block potential terrorists from entering the country easily. According to Mr. Ridge's testimony, “…the Department would assume responsibility for operational assets of the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (including the Border Patrol), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Transportation Security Administration.” 2 Mr. Ridge insisted that the Secretary of Homeland Security should have the authority to administer and enforce all immigration and nationality laws, including, through the Secretary of State, the visa issuance functions of consular officers. As a result, the Department would have sole responsibility for managing entry into the United States and protecting national transportation infrastructure. Under the proposal, he suggested that all aspects of border control, including the issuance of visas would be assigned to the Department and maintained by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. (The U.S. Department of State maintains that it must be allowed to retain its consular responsibilities in regard to issuance of visas at U.S. embassies around the world and indicates a willingness to share visa application information with the proposed DHS.)

Adding more job duties to the Coast Guard was not well received by the Committee members. There was general consensus that the U.S. Coast Guard would be heavily burdened with work of guarding U.S. borders in addition to current job duties such as search and rescue and protection of U.S. fisheries. Should the Department of Homeland Security be established, the new Department would be responsible for preventing illegal immigrants from entering into the U.S. via ships as well as actively intercepting any drug trafficking. Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) advocated that the Department establish a strong visa issuance program in which greater scrutiny will provide a more secure visa issuing process. Representative Weldon also observed that the proposal may be too fragmented, and that he wanted to see the Bureau of Consular Affairs placed under this new department to help resolve fragmentation.

Two other issues that were raised included the future of FEMA and research for antidotes to biological agents. To many committee members, issues relative to the possible reorganization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were of critical importance. Concerns centered on future emergency preparedness and response issues and the way in which FEMA and/or the Department of Homeland Security would be able to handle future disasters. Some Representatives feared that FEMA's role would be absorbed and truncated. As envisioned by the Bush plan, FEMA' s major role would change in the context of the new DHS. FEMA would become primarily a national security grant-giver, trainer and coordinator for meeting terrorist threats rather than being the primary responder, supervising and distributing major disaster relief. 3

In summary, Mr. Ridge noted that “the White House proposal for the Homeland Security Department is the President's best strategy for combating any dangerous domestic terrorist attack.” He also emphasized that there would be a single spokesperson and a single ordered response under the proposed system that would be more efficient than the current system. “The creation of the new department would lessen any miscommunication or misrepresentation to the public about urgent or emergency time information,” he stated. Should the threat of biochemical warfare grow, Mr. Ridge promises to put greater effort into research and build more resources to protect U.S. interests. Although Congress generally welcomed Mr. Ridge, many of the Senators and Representatives voiced their concerns over the lack of details in the proposal and verbalized their expectations of further discussion regarding many aspects of the plan.

In June of 2002, the Brookings Institution, a Washington “think tank,” conducted a study on the White House proposal for the Department of Homeland Security and found that the risks outweighed the gains in merging all or parts of 22 agencies into one department. According to the Brookings team, the core elements of a new department should be the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Transportation Security Administration. Their recommendation to Congress is that the Homeland Security Department should have more access to raw intelligence data. According to The Washington Post, the “recommendations mirror some of the changes proposed by congressional committees and critics in recent weeks. In mid-July, House committees recommended revisions to the President's plan that included leaving the Coast Guard and FEMA out of the department and strengthening civil service and union and whistle-blower protections for workers who would staff the agency.” 4 The overall consensus is that September 11 is an unreasonable deadline and is yet another reason to scale back the White House plan. Brookings Institution concluded that other agencies could be merged into the proposed department after more extensive consideration.

Despite the fact that many of these issues are yet to be resolved, the President would like to see his proposal passed by Congress on or before September 11, 2002. However, based on the tone of the hearing and current public ambivalence, it seems unlikely that Congress will pass this proposal into law without significant revision by this time.