Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management -- Implementation Phase
Congressional research reportJan 3, 2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL31751
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security:
Department Organization and Management
— Implementation Phase
Updated January 3, 2005
name redacted
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Homeland Security:
Department Organization and Management
— Implementation Phase
Summary
After substantial congressional entreatment, President George W. Bush gave
impetus to the creation of a Department of Homeland Security when, on June 6,
2002, he proposed the establishment of such an entity by the 107th Congress. The
President transmitted his department proposal to the House of Representatives on
June 18, where it was subsequently introduced by request (H.R. 5005). The House
approved the bill in amended form on July 26. The Senate did not begin
consideration of the legislation until after an August recess. Senate deliberations on
the matter were slower due to partisan and parliamentary factors, as well as a few
highly contentious issues, such as civil service protections and collective bargaining
rights of the employees of the new department. When both houses of Congress
reconvened after the November elections, a new, compromise department bill was
introduced in the House (H.R. 5710), which considered and adopted the measure on
November 13. Six days later, the Senate approved the original House bill (H.R.
5005), as modified with the language of the compromise legislation (H.R. 5710),
which had been offered as an amendment. The House cleared the Senate-passed
measure for the President’s signature (P.L. 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135). Ultimately,
President Bush largely obtained what he wanted in the legislation mandating the
department.
Overseeing the implementation of the legislation mandating the new
Department of Homeland Security, and possibly refining it and making some
technical modifications, was within the purview of the 108th Congress. Some
legislators, for example, wanted to eliminate provisions protecting manufacturers
from liability lawsuits, broaden the criteria for the creation of university-based
centers for homeland security, and make the department subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (H.R. 484, H.R. 1416, S. 6, S. 28, S. 41, S. 45, S. 134, S.
910). The department’s charter also contained some contradictory provisions, such
as those concerning the appointment of an officer for civil rights and civil liberties.
Other implementation issues included Senate confirmation of presidential nominees
for department leadership positions, creation of initial budgets for the new
department, and assessing the various reports to Congress required of the new
department. A few modifications were realized in provisions of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which was enacted into law in December
2004. This report has been updated as events recommended during the 108th
Congress. CRS Report RL31148, Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination
Office, assesses the operations and status of the Office of Homeland Security; CRS
Report RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management
— Legislative Phase, assesses the development and enactment of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002.
Contents
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Operational Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Congressional Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Refining the Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
H.R. 484 (Ose) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
H.R. 1416 (Cox) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
S. 6 (Daschle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
S. 28 (Nelson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
S. 41 (Lieberman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
S. 45 (Feingold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
S. 134 (Dayton) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
S. 910 (Akaka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Related Congressional Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
List of Tables
Table 1. Initial Principal Leaders of the Department of Homeland Security . . . . 6
Table 2. Deadlines and Effective Dates: Homeland Security Act and
Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 3. Homeland Security Act Action and Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . 33
Homeland Security:
Department Organization and Management
— Implementation Phase
Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11,
2001, prompted various major efforts at combating terrorism and ensuring homeland
security. President George W. Bush ultimately became the architect of new
arrangements to coordinate these efforts. With E.O. 13228 of October 8, 2001, he
established the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) and the Homeland Security
Council (HSC) within the Executive Office of the President.1 That same day, he
appointed former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge an Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security, who would also direct OHS.
Although Ridge contended that his close proximity and easy access to the
President gave him all the authority he needed to do his job, some were not
convinced and sought to reconstitute OHS with a statutory mandate and more explicit
responsibilities and powers. Others favored consolidating relevant programs and
hierarchical administrative authority in a new department. Among the first to pursue
this approach was Senator Joseph Lieberman, who introduced his initial proposal (S.
1534) a few days after the establishment of OHS. He and Representative Mac
Thornberry later introduced more elaborate versions of this legislation (S. 2452 and
H.R. 4660) in early May 2002.2
By late January 2002, Ridge, according to the Washington Post, was “facing
resistance to some of his ideas, forcing him to apply the brakes on key elements of
his agenda and raising questions about how much he can accomplish.” OHS plans
engendering opposition from within the executive branch reportedly included those
to streamline or consolidate agencies responsible for border security; improve
intelligence distribution to federal, state, and local agencies; and alert federal, state,
and local officials about terrorist threats using a system of graduated levels of
danger.3
At about this same time, Ridge began to become embroiled in controversy over
his refusal to testify before congressional committees. Among the first to request his
1
See Federal Register, vol. 66, Oct. 10, 2001, pp. 51812-51817.
2
Rep. Thornberry had introduced legislation (H.R. 1158) on Mar. 21, 2001, to establish a
National Homeland Security Agency which closely resembled his subsequent departmental
proposal, but the organization was not denominated a department and seemingly would not
have had Cabinet status.
3
Eric Pianin and Bill Miller, “For Ridge, Ambition and Realities Clash,” Washington Post,
Jan. 23, 2002, pp. A1, A10.
CRS-2
appearance were Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Ted Stevens, respectively, the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Ridge
turned down their initial, informal invitation and later formal requests of March 15
and April 4.4 When Ridge declined the request of Representative Ernest Istook, Jr.,
chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government, appropriations for the Executive Office of the President
were threatened, prompting Ridge to offer to meet with Istook and other
subcommittee members in an informal session.5 Thereafter, Ridge arranged other
informal briefings with members of the House Committee on Government Reform
and a group of Senators, and agreed to a similar such session with members of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce. These informal meetings, however,
did not appear to abate the controversy that Ridge’s refusals to testify had generated.6
Assessing the situation in early May 2002, a New York Times news analysis
proffered that, “instead of becoming the preeminent leader of domestic security, Tom
Ridge has become a White House adviser with a shrinking mandate, forbidden by the
president to testify before Congress to explain his strategy, overruled in White House
councils and overshadowed by powerful cabinet members reluctant to cede their turf
or their share of the limelight.” In support of this view, the analysis noted that the
Pentagon did not consult with Ridge when suspending air patrols over New York
City — a special assistant to the Secretary of Defense explained this action by saying,
“We don’t tell the Office of Homeland Security about recommendations, only about
decisions” — and the Attorney General unilaterally announced a possible terrorist
threat against banks in April.7 Asked about this assessment by Jim Lehrer on the
PBS Newshour, Ridge called it “false” and said, “I just don’t think they have spent
enough time with me on a day-to-day basis.”8 Shortly thereafter, a New York Times
editorial opined that one of the reasons Ridge “lost these turf battles is that he failed
4
Dave Boyer, “Ridge Reluctant to Testify in Senate,” Washington Times, Feb. 27, 2002,
p. A4; (name redacted), “Congressional Hearings: Letter to Ridge Is Latest Jab in Fight Over
Balance of Powers,” New York Times, Mar. 5, 2002, p. A8; Mark Preston, “Byrd Holds
Firm,” Roll Call, Apr. 18, 2002, pp. 1, 26.
5
George Archibald, “Panel Ties Funding to Ridge Testimony,” Washington Times, Mar.
22, 2002, pp. A1, A14; George Archibald, “White House Mollifies House Panel,”
Washington Times, Mar. 23, 2002, pp. A1, A4.
6
Bill Miller, “Ridge Will Meet Informally with 2 House Committees,” Washington Post,
Apr. 4, 2002, p. A15; George Archibald, “Ridge Attends Private Meeting on Hill,”
Washington Times, Apr. 11, 2002, p. A4; Elizabeth Becker, “Ridge Briefs House Panel, but
Discord Is Not Resolved,” New York Times, Apr. 11, 2002, p. A17; Bill Miller, “From Bush
Officials, a Hill Overture and a Snub,” Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2002, p. A27; Amy Fagan,
“Democrats Irked by Ridge’s Closed House Panel Meeting,” Washington Times, Apr. 12,
2002, p. A6; Stephen Dinan, “Ridge Briefing Called ‘Stunt’,” Washington Times, May 3,
2002, p. A9; Bill Miller, “On Homeland Security Front, a Rocky Day on the Hill,”
Washington Post, May 3, 2002, p. A25.
7
Elizabeth Becker, “Big Visions for Security Post Shrink Amid Political Drama,” New York
Times, May 3, 2002, pp. A1, A16.
8
NewsHour Focus, Newsmaker: Tom Ridge, May 9, 2002, transcript available at NewsHour
Index, [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html].
CRS-3
to build a constituency for change in Congress. His refusal to testify before
Congressional committees has not helped.”9
Ridge’s problems had not escaped White House attention. In his April 11
testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs concerning Senator
Lieberman’s proposal for a homeland security department, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), reportedly indicated
that the President might eventually decide to create the department as envisaged in
the Lieberman bill. In addition, Daniels said he would consider creating a working
group with Senator Lieberman to discuss the legislation.10 Subsequently, Daniels,
Ridge, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., and White House counsel
Alberto R. Gonzales would constitute the principal members of a group that began
drafting the President’s departmental plan on April 23. This proposal was unveiled
on June 6, 2002. The President transmitted a draft bill detailing his plan for a
homeland security department on June 18, and it was formally introduced (H.R.
5005) on June 24.11 An alternative model was provided by Senator Lieberman (S.
2452) and Representative Thornberry (H.R. 4660), who sought to create both a
Department of National Homeland Security and a new Executive Office of the
President entity, the National Office for Combating Terrorism.
The President’s proposal for a Department of Homeland Security reflected his
desire to move beyond the indeterminate coordination efforts of OHS to a strong
administrative structure for managing consolidated programs concerned with border
and transportation security, making effective response to domestic terrorism
incidents, and ensuring homeland security. Offering his proposal to Congress and
asking for its immediate adoption also set the legislative agenda on the matter.
The President’s proposal was introduced by request in the House (H.R. 5005)
on June 24, 2002, and it was subsequently approved in amended form on July 26.
The Senate did not begin consideration of the legislation until after an August recess.
Senate deliberations on the matter were slower due to partisan and parliamentary
factors, as well as a few highly contentious issues, such as civil service protections
and collective bargaining rights of the employees of the new department. When both
houses of Congress reconvened after the November elections, a new, compromise
department bill was introduced in the House (H.R. 5710), which considered and
adopted the measure on November 13. Six days later, the Senate approved the
original House bill (H.R. 5005), substituting the compromise text (H.R. 5710), as
amended. The House cleared the Senate-passed measure for the President’s
signature.12 Ultimately, President Bush largely obtained what he wanted in the
9
Editorial, “Faltering on the Home Front,” New York Times, May 12, 2002, p. 14.
10
Elizabeth Becker, “Domestic Security: Bush Is Said to Consider a New Security
Department,” New York Times, April 12, 2002, p. A15.
11
12
See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148, June 18, 2002, pp. H3639-H3641.
See, generally, CRS Report RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization and
Management — Legislative Phase, by (name redacted).
CRS-4
legislation mandating the department, which he signed into law on November 25,
2002.13
Implementation
Crucial to the success of any new department is the initial implementation of the
legislation creating it. One review of the record of previous experience has suggested
that, in past “attempts at reorganization, serious concern with implementation is
typically too little and too late.”14 Consequently, as the General Accounting Office
(GAO) reported, new and reorganized agencies have experienced substantial startup
problems — delays in obtaining key officials prevented timely decisionmaking;
delays in obtaining needed staff impeded first-year operations; insufficient funding
necessitated additional budget requests; and inadequate office space contributed to
inefficient handling of workload and morale problems.15 Thus, key considerations
for making the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a successfully operating
organization were the strategy and timetable for selecting department leaders and
putting them in place, connecting leaders and workers through an electronic
communications network,16 shifting components to the new management
arrangements, and putting other supporting administrative mechanisms into
operation. These considerations were complicated by the new department’s
considerable field operations, shared responsibility and partnership with state and
local governments, as well as the private sector, and need not only to maintain
continued vigilance regarding terrorist threats, but also to be continuously capable of
responding effectively to a terrorist incident. President Bush initially addressed
implementation concerns with E.O. 13267 of June 20, 2002, establishing a Transition
Planning Office within OMB to “coordinate, guide, and conduct transition and
related planning” for the new department throughout the executive branch and to
work, as well, with Congress in this regard.17
The new department’s statutory mandate indicated “that each House of Congress
should review its committee structure in light of the reorganization of responsibilities
within the executive branch by the establishment of the Department.” Important
considerations in this regard concerned the appropriation of funds for the new
department and oversight of its administration and activities. Moreover, because
implementation would occur over time, Congress would have to be prepared,
organizationally and in other ways, to work with the Secretary of Homeland Security
in fine-tuning the organization, management, and operations of the department.
13
116 Stat. 2135; see Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 38, Nov. 25,
2002, pp. 2092-2095.
14
I. M. Destler, “Implementing Reorganization,” in Peter Szanton, ed., Federal
Reorganization: What Have We Learned? (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1981), p. 155.
15
U.S. General Accounting Office, Implementation: The Missing Link in Planning
Reorganizations, GAO Report GGD-81-57 (Washington: March 20, 1981), pp. 5-12.
16
See Susan M. Menke, “At Its Core, a Systems Shake-Up,” Government Computer News,
vol. 21, June 17, 2002, pp. 1, 12; Karen Robb, “OMB Ready to Link Homeland Agencies,”
Federal Times, June 17, 2002, p. 3.
17
Federal Register, vol. 67, June 24, 2002, pp. 42469-42470.
CRS-5
Plan. Pursuant to Section 1502 of the Homeland Security Act, President Bush
submitted his reorganization plan for DHS on November 25, 2002.18 This document
addressed two categories of information concerning plans for the new department:
the transfer of agencies, personnel, assets, and obligations to the department, and any
consolidation, reorganization, or streamlining of agencies so transferred. These
categories were set out in the following six plan elements.
(1) Identification of any functions of agencies transferred to the Department
... that will not be transferred to the Department under the plan.
(2) Specification of the Steps to be taken by the Secretary to organize the
Department, including the delegation or assignment of functions transferred to
the Department among officers of the Department in order to permit the
Department to carry out the functions transferred under the plan.
(3) Specification of the funds available to each agency that will be
transferred to the Department as a result of transfers under the plan. [Referenced
tables concerning funds were not made public at the time of the issuance of the
plan.]
(4) Specification of the proposed allocations within the Department of
unexpended funds transferred in connection with transfers under the plan.
[Referenced tables concerning funds were not made public at the time of the
issuance of the plan.]
(5) Specification of any proposed disposition of property, facilities,
contracts, records, or other assets and obligations of agencies transferred under
the plan.
(6) Specification of the proposed allocations within the Department of the
functions of the agencies and subdivisions that are not related directly to securing
the homeland.
The plan became effective without the necessity of any formal congressional
approval. However, some within the congressional community were not entirely
satisfied with the plan. In addition to not initially providing the financial tables
referenced in it, the plan was criticized for failing to address such key considerations
as the creation and implementation of a planning, programming, and budgeting
system, a human resources management system, or an electronic communications
enterprise architecture system. News accounts had reported that plans for the latter
areas were under development, but the reorganization plan did not mention them,
adhering, instead, strictly to the content requirements specified in Section 1502.19
18
White House Office, “Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan,” Nov. 25,
2002, Washington, DC, available without referenced tables at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/reorganization_plan.pdf].
19
See, for example, Shane Harris, “White House to Unveil First Homeland Security Tech
Blueprint,” GovExec.com, Nov. 13, 2002, available at [http://www.govexec.com]; Tim
Kauffman, “OPM Promises Homeland Security Personnel System by June,” Federal Times,
Dec. 2, 2002, pp. 1, 5.
CRS-6
The result was a less than assured sense of cooperation for those beginning to pursue
congressional oversight of the new department’s formation.
Leadership. When signing the Homeland Security Act into law on November
25, 2002, President Bush said he intended to appoint Tom Ridge, the director of
OHS, as the head of the new department. This nomination was received in the
Senate on January 7, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, which reported it favorably on January 17. The Senate confirmed the
appointment on January 22 on a 94-0 vote. Ridge was sworn in on January 24, when
the department became operational. Others subsequently named initially for
principal leadership positions within the department are specified in Table 1.
Table 1. Initial Principal Leaders of the
Department of Homeland Security
Position
Designee
Secretary
Thomas J. Ridge
Deputy Secretary
Gordon England
Under Secretary for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection
Frank Libutti
Under Secretary for Science and
Technology
Charles E. McQueary
Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security
Asa Hutchinson
Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response
Michael D. Brown
Under Secretary for Management
Janet Hale
Chief Financial Officer
Bruce Marshall Carnes
Chief Human Capital Officer
Ronald James
Chief Information Officer
Steven I. Cooper
Counternarcotics Officer
Roger Mackin
Privacy Officer
Nuala O’Connor Kelly
General Counsel
Joe D. Whitley
Inspector General
Clark Kent Ervin
In mid-August 2004, the Heritage Foundation issued a report advocating the
establishment of an Under Secretary for Policy within DHS. Characterizing the
position as “a high-level policy officer with staff, authority, and gravitas to articulate
policy guidance throughout the department in order to implement the President’s
policies,” the report justified its recommendation saying, “DHS needs a more
substantial capability to provide guidance for integrating current efforts, conducting
program analysis, performing long-range strategic planning, and undertaking net
CRS-7
assessments.” The Department of Defense, another large department by many
measures, has had an Under Secretary for Policy, which the Heritage Foundation
report regarded as being beneficial.20 There appeared to be, however, little or no
legislative interest in this proposal.
As the end of 2004 approached, some of the principal leaders of DHS
announced plans to depart from their positions. These officials included Secretary
Ridge; Deputy Secretary James Loy, who had succeeded Gordon England in
December 2003; Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Frank Libutti; and Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin. When New York
City police commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, for personal reasons, asked in December
that his name be withdrawn as a nominee for the DHS secretaryship, the year ended
without any nominees for these positions having been named.
Funding. One of the most important actions for DHS was the formulation and
funding of its initial operating budgets. Agencies and functions transferred to the
department reportedly brought with them some $35.5 billion, but this figure
represented the FY2003 budget requests for those entities.21 During its final weeks,
the 107th Congress enacted continuing resolutions which, for the most part, minimally
funded the executive departments and agencies for FY2003 at FY2002 budget levels.
The last of these continuing resolutions provided qualified authorization for the
Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer upwards of $500 million of funds made
available to the department, such as the funds of agencies transferred to the
department. These funds, it was declared, must “be available for the same purposes,
and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred.”22
The President’s FY2004 budget request for the department was almost $29.4
billion. Approximately half of the requested amount, $14.5 billion, was allocated to
the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security. Next was the Directorate for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, which was designated to receive $4.3
billion. The Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection was
to be provided $829 million; the Directorate for Science and Technology was
allocated $803 million.
On June 24, 2003, the House, on a 425-2 vote, approved legislation (H.R. 2555)
providing the department $29.4 billion, with allocations slightly different from the
President’s request. The department was “directed to submit ... a monthly budget
execution report showing the status of obligations and costs for all components of the
Department.”23
20
James Jay Carafano, Richard Weitz, and Alane Kochems, “Department of Homeland
Security Needs Under Secretary for Policy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1788,
Aug. 17, 2004.
21
Philip Shenon, “The Reorganization Plan: Establishing New Agency Is Expected to Take
Years and Could Divert It From Mission,” New York Times, Nov. 20, 2002, p. A12.
22
116 Stat. 2062, Sec. 3.
23
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
(continued...)
CRS-8
One month after the conclusion of initial House action on the department’s
appropriations, the Senate, on July 24, 2003, approved a $29.3 billion allocation for
DHS on a 93-1 vote. The distribution of these funds differed from the allotments
made in the President’s budget and the House-passed version of the appropriations
bill. Senate appropriators required the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit, to
them and their House counterparts, an annual report on the resources devoted to nonhomeland security missions of the department. “This report,” it was declared, “is to
clearly identify all non-homeland security functions of each of the Department’s
organizations by appropriations account, program, project and activity, and the fulltime equivalent positions and dollars devoted to each for a period of at least 3 fiscal
years, including the prior fiscal year, the current fiscal year, and the budget year.”
Department development of a plan for consolidating and co-locating its regional or
field offices, as required by Section 706 of the Homeland Security Act, was another
matter of keen interest.24
The funding legislation signed into law by President Bush on October 1, 2003,
provided the department a little over $35 billion,25 which, with scorekeeping
adjustments (recissions; airline relief) amounted to $30.3 billion.
For FY2005, the President requested $32.6 billion for the department, a 7.7%
increase over the actual allocation for the previous fiscal year. On June 18, 2004, the
House approved legislation (H.R. 4567) providing the department $33.1 billion; the
Senate reported a bill (S. 2537) on June 17 recommending the same amount as in the
counterpart House bill, which was subsequently approved.26 Thus, the DHS
appropriations legislation signed by the President provided slightly more than the
amount originally requested.27
Operational Arrangements. Although the lack of detail in the President’s
November 25, 2002, reorganization plan on some important aspects of the
formulation and management of the new department was disappointing for some in
the congressional community, news accounts indicated that a number of plans were
underway. As early as mid-November 2002, an OHS official announced that “in the
next 90 days the administration would unveil an enterprise architecture plan for
Homeland Security agencies with border control responsibilities.”28 This plan was
23
(...continued)
Appropriations Bill, 2004, report to accompany H.R. 2555, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept.
108-169 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 5, 7-8.
24
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2004, a report to accompany H.R. 2555, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept.
108-86 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 7, 8-9.
25
117 Stat. 1137.
26
See CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland
Security, by (name redacted) and Dennis Snook.
27
28
118 Stat. 1298.
“An enterprise architecture (EA) provides a clear and comprehensive picture of the
structure of an entity, whether an organization or a functional mission area. It is an essential
(continued...)
CRS-9
reportedly “one of four designs that officials are working on now to help set up the
new department.”29 Testifying before the House Committee on Government Reform
on May 8, 2003, Steven Cooper, then chief information officer for the department,
indicated that the basic or “as is” enterprise architecture for DHS was about 70%
complete and would serve over 2,000 information technology applications.
Completion of the “as is” architecture was expected in June, with the initial phase of
the “to be” or planned future architecture anticipated to be in place in August.30
These developments were crucial for the department’s beginning operations,
providing a basis for essential information technology operations supporting
departmental communications, and information sharing. This included connecting
not only field and headquarters staff, but also serving to link headquarters personnel
and the heads of primary component organizations, some of which initially were
spread around the Washington metropolitan area. Another consideration for these
plans was the efficient, economical, and secure transmission of officially protected
“homeland security” information to relevant state and local officials. In late April
2003, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly
were expanding their networks to share homeland security data across levels of
government and with private sector organizations.31
By early December 2002, efforts were actively underway for planning and
locating a headquarters facility for the new department. By one account, several sites
in the Washington metropolitan area were under consideration, including three in the
District of Columbia, three in Maryland, and two in Virginia. Since 1800, when the
federal government arrived in Washington, the headquarters of almost all Cabinet
departments have been located in the District. In early January 2003, the Bush
Administration won approval from the House for its plan to lease a headquarters
facility in northern Virginia.32 Near the end of the month, however, it was announced
that initial department headquarters would be located in a building at the U.S. Naval
Security Station in the northwest sector of the District of Columbia near the campus
28
(...continued)
tool for effectively and efficiently engineering business processes and for implementing and
evolving supporting systems [and] ... a critical success factor allowing organizations to
effectively apply information technology (IT) to meet mission goals.” U.S. General
Accounting Office, Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving
Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 1.1), GAO Report GAO-03-584G
(Washington: April 2003), p. 1.
29
Harris, “White House to Unveil First Homeland Security Tech Blueprint,” p. 1.
30
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Out of Many, One: Assessing
Barriers to Information Sharing in the Department of Homeland Security, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., hearing, May 8, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 19.
31
See Wilson P. Dizard III, “First Responders Get Homeland Security Network,”
Government Computer News, Apr. 28, 2003, available at [http://www.gcn.com/22_9/
news/21878-1.html].
32
Spencer S. Hsu and Neil Irwin, “Northern Va. Likely to Be New Homeland Security
Site,” Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2003, pp. A1, A8; Neil Irwin and Peter Whoriskey, “Defense
Ties to Va. Help Lure Agency,” Washington Post, Jan. 9, 2003, pp. B1, B8; Tim Lemke,
“Homeland Security Eyes Site in Chantilly,” Washington Times, Jan. 9, 2003, p. A10.
CRS-10
of American University.33 The choice of a site, of course, has implications not only
for the local economy, but also for the recruitment and retention of department
personnel for headquarters staff and for surrounding transportation systems.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) indicated late in December 2002
that it intended to have the DHS personnel system operational by June 1, 2003.
Among other issues, OPM was attempting to reconcile differences among 15 basic
pay systems, 12 special pay systems, 10 hiring methods, eight overtime pay rates,
seven payroll and benefit systems, five locality pay systems, and 19 performance
management systems coming to the department. The Bush Administration reportedly
was planning to solicit input from a variety of sources, including federal employees,
union representatives, personnel experts, and government reform organizations.
About 18,000 of the department’s anticipated initial 170,000 employees would work
in the Washington area, and 46,000 of the department’s workforce were represented
by 17 unions.34 Noting that personnel management arrangements and collective
bargaining rights were among the most contentious and divisive issues surrounding
the legislating of the mandate for the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal
Times editorialized that, because “White House architects building the new
department have done much to alienate the 170,000-person work force that will soon
join the new department,” the Bush Administration should begin “patching up its
dysfunctional relationship with the future middle managers and employees of the new
Homeland Security Department.”35 Two weeks later, Ridge took a step in this
direction with a so-called Town Hall Meeting for Future Employees of the
department.36 The process for designing the department’s new human resources
management system was formally launched on April 1.37 Near the end of July 2003,
a design team responsible for developing personnel system options for the
department presented their findings to a review committee of management and union
officials. The resulting 52 options for pay and classification, labor relations, adverse
action, and appeals were made public on October 3, 2003, on the DHS and OPM
websites, but, by the end of the month, the negotiating officials had failed to narrow
33
Spencer S. Hsu and Neil Irwin, “Homeland Security Settles on D.C.,” Washington Post,
Jan. 23, 2003, pp. A1, A9; Audrey Hudson and Tim Lemke, “Ridge’s Offices Will Be in
NW,” Washington Times, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. A1, A9; Neil Irwin, “From the Ground Up:
Symbolic Choice for Homeland Security Site,” Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2003, pp. E1, E9;
Tim Lemke, “Homeland Location Decision Surprises Many,” Washington Times, Jan. 24,
2003, pp. C8-C9.
34
Tim Kaufmann, “OPM Promises Homeland Security Personnel System by June,” Federal
Times, Dec. 2, 2002, pp. 1, 5; Christopher Lee, “OPM Begins Sorting Security Personnel,”
Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2002, p. A21.
35
Editorial, “An Olive Branch for Security,” Federal Times, Dec. 2, 2002, p. 14.
36
Stephen Barr, “Ridge Addresses Workers,” Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2002, p. A33; a
t r a n s c r i p t o f r e ma r ks ma d e a t t h i s m e e t i n g i s a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/print/20021217-14.html].
37
See Brian Friel, “New Department Begins Pay and Personnel Overhaul,” GovExec.com,
Apr. 1, 2003, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0403/040103b1.htm].
CRS-11
down the options.38 Negotiations continued, and, on February 20, 2004, DHS and
OPM jointly published in the Federal Register proposed regulations to implement
a new human resources management system for the department, with a comment
period open until March 22.39 Talks on the new personnel system, however,
reportedly came to a standstill, and, in late August, two union leaders told their
members that DHS had walked out of the negotiations. Department officials
disputed that characterization, and said the discussions would move to a new level
with Secretary Ridge and OPM director Kay Coles James in attendance. DHS
leaders wanted to publish new regulations in September and, hopefully, launch the
new personnel system next year.40 In early December, in the aftermath of Ridge’s
announcement to leave the department before February, Under Secretary for
Management Janet Hale indicated that DHS would attempt to publish its final human
resources management rules, probably in January, before his departure.41
On January 23, 2003, just before the new department became operational,
President Bush issued E.O. 13284, making certain adjustments in specified
presidential directives to include the Secretary of Homeland Security and other
department officials.42 Shortly thereafter, information management regulations for
the department were published in the Federal Register.43 Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 5 of February 28, 2003, designated the Secretary as the
principal federal official for domestic incidents management.
A reorganization of border agencies was announced by Secretary Ridge on
January 30, 2003.44 On February 28, President Bush issued E.O. 13286 making
adjustments in various executive orders to reflect the transfer of functions and
responsibilities resulting from the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security.45 Formulation of the new department took a major step on March 1 when,
in accordance with the President’s reorganization plan, some three dozen agencies
38
Bridgette Blair, “Team Develops Homeland HR Options,” Federal Times, Oct. 6, 2003,
p. 3; Bridgette Blair, “Officials Fail to Narrow Down Options for Personnel System,”
Federal Times, Oct. 27, 2003, p. 11.
39
See Federal Register, vol. 69, Feb. 20, 2004, p. 8029-8071; CRS Report RL32261,
Homeland Security: Proposed Regulations on Job Evaluation, Pay, and Performance
Management Compared with Current Law, by (name redacted).
40
Stephen Barr, “Homeland Security Talks Criticized,” Washington Post, Aug. 21, 2004,
p. A2.
41
Stephen Barr, “Homeland Security’s Personnel Rules Overhaul Will Proceed Without
Ridge,” Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2004, p. B2.
42
Federal Register, vol. 68, Jan. 28, 2003, pp. 4075-4078; also see E.O. 13286 in ibid.,
Mar. 5, 2003, pp. 10619-10633.
43
Ibid., Jan. 27, 2003, pp. 4056-4074.
44
Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Announces Border Security Reorganization,”
press release, Jan. 30, 2003, available at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=
422]; Department of Homeland Security, “Border Reorganization Remarks by Secretary
Ridge,” transcript, available from a link on the above URL.
45
Federal Register, vol. 68, Mar. 5, 2003, pp. 10619-10633.
CRS-12
and programs were transferred to the new department. Among these were functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which were relocated within the
Bureau of Customs and Border Security, which counted about 30,000 employees, and
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had approximately
14,000 personnel. Ultimately, all such transfers were completed by September 30,
2003.
Testifying before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security at a May
20, 2003, hearing, Secretary Ridge announced plans to create regional offices that
would serve as primary contact points with state and local government officials.
These regional offices were to be determined within the context of rearranging the
department’s field structure. Section 706 of the Homeland Security Act required the
secretary, not later than one year after the enactment of the statute, to develop and
submit to Congress a plan for consolidating and co-locating regional or field offices
of agencies transferred to the department or portions of regional and field offices of
other federal agencies, to the extent that such offices perform functions that were
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Filed on February 4, 2004, this
report revealed details of some modest actions taken to date, as well as plans for
specific consolidations in the new future and analysis of longer-term options to meet
the department’s mission.46
On June 6, 2003, department officials announced the creation of a National
Cyber Security Division within the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate. A main objective of the new entity was implementing the
National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, which had been recently unveiled at the time
of the division’s establishment.47 The head of the division also served as the
President’s chief cybersecurity adviser, moved from the National Security Council
staff to the Department of Homeland Security. Critics viewed this move as not only
a loss of status for the position, but also a loss of authority, as the incumbent was at
least three steps below the office of Secretary Ridge. Richard A. Clarke, who had
served in the position during the previous and present administrations, pronounced
the relocation unworkable, “not a senior enough position.”48 The position had been
vacant since late April 2003, when Clarke’s successor abruptly resigned after about
four months of service.
In early April 2004, DHS established a Data Integrity, Privacy, and
Interoperability Advisory Committee, composed of at least 12 volunteer members
from business, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions, to assist the
department’s Privacy Officer with the development of policy regarding such
controversial matters as personal information sharing between the government and
46
Letter and typescript report, Pamela J. Turner, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Feb. 4, 2004 (unpublished).
47
Dennis Fisher, “DHS Unveils Cyber-Security Division,” eweek, June 6, 2003, available
at [http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43006,00.asp].
48
Associated Press, “Cybersecurity Post to be in Ridge’s Department,” Washington Post,
May 27, 2003, p. E5.
CRS-13
private companies. Members of the panel were appointed by Secretary Ridge, and
plans were for it to begin meetings in September or October.49
A few months thereafter, in July, the DHS Inspector General issued a report
advocating a stronger role for the department’s CIO by repositioning him to report
directly to the deputy secretary. This change, it was thought, would strengthen the
CIO’s ability to strategically manage DHS information resources and systems.50 At
the time, within the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, consideration
was being given to relocating the CIO to the office of the DHS deputy secretary as
a move to strengthen department management.
Overview. A September 2003 Washington Post news column assessing DHS
six months after it became operational found the new department “hobbled by money
woes, disorganization, turf battles and unsteady support from the White House” and
making “only halting progress towards its goals, according to administration officials
and independent experts.” However, “despite the distraction of turmoil at the top of
the department, its many agencies are moving forward with their missions.” The
turbulence within the secretary’s office resulted partly from Ridge, who is “not detailoriented,” delegating tasks to his chief of staff, Bruce M. Lawlor, who did not include
Deputy Secretary Gordon England in some important decisions. England was due
to return to his previous post as Secretary of the Navy, and Lawlor, whose manner
was thought to have “alienated many people in the White House,” was expected to
take a lower-level DHS position. It was also felt that “the staff around Ridge is
exceedingly spare.” The department also experienced “cascading budget crises that
have led officials to make emergency cuts in crucial programs such as port security
and air marshals, which Congress has then overruled.”51
More recently, the Century Foundation of New York, on March 4, 2004, made
available an advance copy of a first-year assessment of DHS prepared by Donald F.
Kettl, a veteran public administration analyst and professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He gave the department a grade of C+. This overall grade
derived from evaluations of five areas of department responsibility: aviation security
(B-), intelligence (B-), immigration (C+), coordination with state and local
governments (C), and departmental management (C+). “As is scarcely surprising
given the enormity of the task it faced,” wrote Kettl, “the department’s performance
has varied widely. In some areas, the DHS has done exceptionally well, yet in other
areas, conditions are worse than before the DHS was created. The biggest areas
needing improvement,” he proffered, “in fact, deal with the very coordination —
‘connecting the dots’ — problems that the department was created to solve.”52
49
Federal Register, vol. 69, April 9, 2004, p. 18923.
50
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Improvements
Needed to DHS’ Information Technology Management Structure, Report OIG-04-30
(Washington: July 2004).
51
John Mintz, “Government’s Hobbled Giant,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2003, pp. A1,
A19-A20.
52
Donald F. Kettl, “The Department of Homeland Security’s First Year: A Report Card,”
(continued...)
CRS-14
It was also in March 2004 that the DHS Office of Inspector General released its
Review of the Status of Department of Homeland Security Efforts to Address Its
Major Management Challenges. Discussing the results of the review, the report
stated that “DHS has made significant progress in addressing all of its management
challenges. However,” it added, “some of the planned improvements will take years
to develop and implement, and much remains to be done.” The following examples
were offered.
!
DHS has taken steps to consolidate many of its support services
operations, including financial management, contracting, and
human resources, but the operations are still not under central
control, and contracts management and information technology
present formidable challenges.
!
DHS has taken steps to consolidate its preparedness grant programs
under one component, and generally has been timely in awarding
“first responder” funds; however, state and local grant recipients
have been slow in spending the funds, and an effective grants
management system is needed.
!
Financial management functions provided by 19 separate service
providers during FY2003 are now provided by 10 service providers,
including 4 outside DHS; however, development and
implementation of a single, integrated financial management
system are still years away.
!
DHS has developed and distributed for public comment proposed
human resources regulations that will dramatically affect DHS
employees and could serve as a model for the whole federal
government; however, finalizing and implementing these
regulations will be challenging.
!
DHS has made major strides in protecting U.S. borders, including
beginning implementation of the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indication Technology System (US-VISIT)
program, which will provide the capability to record entry and exit
information on foreign visitors who travel through U.S. air, sea, and
land ports of entry. However, the challenges are immense, and it
will take years to address them fully.
The report regarded ongoing efforts to implement the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act of 2001 and the Marine Transportation Security Act of
2002 to be “[t]wo of the greatest homeland security challenges facing DHS over the
past year. Despite the progress that has been made over the past year,” it continued,
“tight legislative deadlines, funding difficulties, a shortage of trained and qualified
personnel to oversee and implement the legislation, delays in the acquisition and
implementation of technological solutions, and a shortage of critical infrastructure
to support homeland security initiatives, continue to challenge the department.”
52
(...continued)
uncorrected manuscript, p. 12, Century Foundation, released Mar. 4, 2004, and available at
[http://www.tcf.org/Publications/HomelandSecurity/overview.pdf].
CRS-15
Finally, information technology (IT) was considered to be “a major management
challenge for DHS.”
IT systems and tools are fundamental to supporting programs and activities
across the department — from counter-terrorism, to border protection, to internal
department operations. Effectively managing the IT assets is not only critical to
achieving performance goals and the greatest possible returns on investments, it
is also required by law. With central responsibility for ensuring effective IT
management pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act and related statutes, the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) is working to establish department-wide IT strategies
and a consolidated framework for meeting mission needs. Key areas of focus
include IT security, integrating systems, and ensuring effective information
sharing.53
A chronology of events — deadlines and effective dates — prescribed by the
Homeland Security Act and the President’s Department of Homeland Security
Reorganization Plan is provided in Table 2. The table does not include Title X of
the Homeland Security Act, which was superseded by provisions of Title III of the
E-Government Act,54 both titles making information security amendments to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.55
53
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Review of the Status
of Department of Homeland Security Efforts to Address Its Major Management Challenges,
Report OIG-04-21 (Washington: March 2004), pp. 3-4, available at [http://www.dhs.gov/
interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_DHSManagementChallenges0304.pdf].
54
116 Stat. 2899 at 2946.
55
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
CRS-16
Table 2. Deadlines and Effective Dates: Homeland Security Act
and Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan
Event Date
Event
November 25, 2002
President George W. Bush signs the Homeland Security Act
into law as P.L. 107-296.
The President, pursuant to Section 1502 of the Homeland
Security Act, submits to Congress a reorganization plan
regarding two categories of information concerning plans for
the Department of Homeland Security: (1) the transfer of
agencies, personnel, assets, and obligations to the department;
and (2) any consolidation, reorganization, or streamlining of
agencies transferred to the department. This plan is required to
be submitted not later than 60 days after the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act.
All visa-related third party screening programs in Saudi Arabia
are terminated, pursuant to Section 428(i), after the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act.
Section 812(b), concerning the promulgation of guidelines
under the Inspector General Act of 1978, becomes effective,
pursuant to Section 812(c)(2), upon the date of the enactment
of the Homeland Security Act.
December 25, 2002
The Attorney General, pursuant to Section 460 of the Act,
submits to Congress, not more than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a report on
changes in law, including changes in authorizations of
appropriations and in appropriations, that are needed to permit
the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the successor
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to ensure a
prompt and timely response to emergent, unforeseen, or
impending changes in the number of applications for
immigration benefits, and otherwise to ensure the
accommodation of changing immigration service needs.
December 30, 2002
The President, pursuant to Section 306(d) of the Act, notifies
appropriate congressional committees, not later than 60 days
before effecting any transfer of Department of Energy life
sciences activities pursuant to Section 303(1)(D) of the Act, of
the proposed transfer, including the reasons for same and a
description of the effect of the transfer on the activities of the
Department of Energy. According to the reorganization plan,
Department of Energy life sciences activities are transferred to
the department by March 1, 2003.
CRS-17
Event Date
Event
January 24, 2003
The Homeland Security Act, pursuant to Section 4, becomes
effective 60 days after the date of its enactment.
The Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Section 418(b) of
the Act, submits, not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a report to the Senate
Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and
Means on proposed conforming amendments to the statutes set
forth under Section 412(a)(2), and identify those authorities
vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that are exercised by
the Commissioner of Customs on or before the effective date
of the section.
The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to Section 423(b) of
the Act, submits, not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a report to Congress
containing a plan for complying with the requirements of
Section 44901(d) of Title 49, United States Code, as amended
by Section 425 of the Homeland Security Act.
Pursuant to the department reorganization plan:
— the office of the Secretary of Homeland Security is
established;
— appointments, upon confirmation by the Senate, or transfer
pursuant to the transfer provisions of the Homeland
Security Act, are begun of as many of the following
officers as may be possible — the Deputy Secretary for
Homeland Security, five under secretaries, the director of
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, not
more than 12 assistant secretaries, the general counsel,
the inspector general, and the Commissioner of Customs;
— naming, as soon as possible, of officers to fill the following
offices — Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis,
Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, Privacy
Officer, Director of Secret Service, Chief Information
Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
Director of Shared Services, Citizenship and Immigration
Ombudsman, and Director of the Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency;
— the Office for State and Local Government;
— Coordination, the Office of International Affairs, and the
Office of National Capital Region Coordination are
established within the office of the Secretary;
— the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects
Agency and the Acceleration Fund for Research and
Development of Homeland Security Technologies are
established;
— the Office for National Laboratories is established within
the Directorate of Science and Technology;
— the Bureau of Border Security, the Bureau of Citizenship
CRS-18
Event Date
Event
and Immigration Services, and the Director of Shared
Services are established; and
— the Transportation Security Oversight Board is established.
Tom Ridge is sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
pursuant to Section 507(b)(2) of the Act, revises the Federal
Response Plan established under E.O. 12148 and E.O. 12656,
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, to reflect the establishment of, and
incorporate, the Department of Homeland Security.
The President, pursuant to Section 1502 of the Act, transmits
to the appropriate congressional committees, not later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security
Act, a reorganization plan for the department.
February 23, 2003
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
214(e) of the Act, in consultation with appropriate
representatives of the National Security Council and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, establishes, not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of Subtitle B of Title II
of the Homeland Security Act, uniform procedures for the
receipt, care, and storage by federal agencies of critical
infrastructure information that is voluntarily submitted to the
government.
The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Section 601(f) of the
Act, in coordination with the Attorney General, director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Director of Central
Intelligence, prescribes, not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, regulations to
carry out the provisions of Title VI of the Act concerning
charitable trusts for members of the armed forces of the United
States and other governmental organizations.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall review
the pay and benefit plans of each agency whose functions are
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and,
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), shall submit a
plan to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House,
and the appropriate committees and subcommittees of
Congress, for ensuring to the maximum extent practicable the
elimination of disparities in pay and benefits throughout the
department.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
888(i) of the Act, in consultation with the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, transmits a report to the House and Senate
CRS-19
Event Date
Event
Appropriations Committees, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act,
analyzing the feasibility of accelerating the rate of procurement
in the Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System from 20
years to 10 years and on other related matters.
The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to Section 1204 of
the act, transmits to the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a report
on war risk insurance matters specified in the section.
March 1, 2003
Pursuant to the department reorganization plan, the following
entities are transferred to the department:
— Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department
of Commerce;
— National Communications System;
— National Infrastructure Protection Center of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation;
— National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center;
— Energy Assurance Office of the Department of Energy;
— Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General
Services Administration;
— Coast Guard;
— Customs Service;
— Transportation Security Administration;
— Immigration and Naturalization Service functions;
— Federal Protective Service;
— Office of Domestic Preparedness;
— Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
— Secretary of Agriculture functions relating to agricultural
import and entry inspection activities;
— United States Secret Service;
— Department of Energy chemical and biological national
security and supporting programs and activities of the
nonproliferation and verification research and
development program;
— Department of Energy life sciences activities related to
microbial pathogens of the Biological and Environmental
Research Program;
— National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center of the
Department of Defense;
— Department of Energy nuclear smuggling programs and
activities within the proliferation detection program of
the nonproliferation and verification research and
development program;
— Department of Energy nuclear assessment program and
activities of the assessment, detection, and cooperation
CRS-20
Event Date
Event
program of the international materials protection and
cooperation program, as well as the advanced scientific
computing research program and activities at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory;
— Environmental Measurements Laboratory of the
Department of Energy;
— Federal Emergency Management Agency;
— Integrated Hazard Information System of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
— National Domestic Preparedness Office of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and functions of the Attorney
General relating thereto;
— Domestic Energy Support Team of the Department of
Justice and functions of the Attorney General relating
thereto;
— Metropolitan Medical Response System of the Department
of Health and Human Services and functions of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and Assistant
Secretary for Public Health
— Emergency Preparedness relating thereto;
— National Disaster Medical System of the Department of
Health and Human Services and functions of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and Assistant
Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness
relating thereto;
— Office of Emergency Preparedness and National Strategic
Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human
Services and functions of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness relating thereto; and
— authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct
the Nuclear Incident Response Team of the Department
of Energy to operate as an organizational unit.
Sections 451-456 of the Act, establishing the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, become effective,
pursuant to Section 455, upon the transfer of relevant functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the
department.
Authorities, appropriations, and personnel of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service are transferred to the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to Section 456 of the
Act, upon the transfer of relevant functions of the Service to
the department.
Section 462 of the Act, concerning children’s affairs, becomes
effective, pursuant to Section 462(d), upon the transfer of
relevant functions of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to the department.
CRS-21
Event Date
Event
Upon the abolishment of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service pursuant to Section 471 of the Act, but before they
obligate any resources for voluntary separation incentive
payments, the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland
Security submit, pursuant to Section 472(b), a strategic
restructuring plan to the House and Senate Appropriations and
Judiciary Committees, House Committee on Government
Reform, and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
March 25, 2003
The director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Executive Office of the President, pursuant to Section 428(h)
of the Act, submits to Congress, not later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a
report on how the provisions of the visa issuance section will
affect procedures for the issuance of student visas.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
461(c) of the Act, establishes, not later than 60 days after the
effective date of the Homeland Security Act, a Technical
Advisory Committee to assist with establishing an online filing
system mandated by Section 461(a) of the Act.
April 24, 2003
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 416 of the Act, submits, not later than three months
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act, a report
to Congress setting forth all trade functions performed by the
executive branch, specifying each agency that performs each
such function.
May 1, 2003
The United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to Section
225(c) of the Act, submits, not later than May 1, 2003, a brief
report to Congress explaining actions taken by it in response to
provisions of the section and including any recommendations it
may have regarding statutory penalties for offenses under
Section 1030 of Title 18, United States Code.
May 23, 2003
Section 1122 concerning permits for purchasers of explosives
becomes effective, pursuant to Section 1122(i) of the Act, 180
days after the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security
Act.
May 24, 2003
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
477(a) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
Appropriations and Judiciary Committees, not later than 120
days after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act, a
report on the proposed division and transfer of funds, including
unexpended funds, appropriations, and fees, between the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the
Bureau of Border Security.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
477(b) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
CRS-22
Event Date
Event
Appropriations and Judiciary Committees, not later than 120
days after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act, a
report on the proposed division of personnel between the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the
Bureau of Border Security.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
477(c) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
Appropriations and Judiciary Committees, not later than 120
days after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act and
every six months thereafter until the termination of FY2005, an
implementation plan concerning the separation of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Border Security.
The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, pursuant
to Section 1403(c)(2) of the Act, transmits to Congress, not
later than six months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, a report on the results of a study to
evaluate the benefits and risks of providing flight attendants
with nonlethal weapons to aide in combating air piracy and
criminal violence in commercial airlines.
The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to Section 1404(b)
of the Act, transmits to Congress, not later than six months
after the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a
report on the results of a study on federal law enforcement
officers traveling on commercial airliners annually and other
related matters specified in the section.
June 1, 2003
Pursuant to the department reorganization plan, the Plum
Island Animal Disease Center of the Department of
Agriculture is transferred to the department, and the Homeland
Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee is
established.
June 30, 2003
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman,
pursuant to Section 452(c), submits, not later than June 30 of
each calendar year, directly to the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees, a report containing recommendations,
summarizing problems encountered by individuals and
employers, and other information as deemed advisable by the
ombudsman.
July 24, 2003
The Attorney General, pursuant to Section 812(b)(2) of the
Act, promulgates, not later than 180 days after the effective
date of the Homeland Security Act, guidelines under Section
6(e)(4) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 applicable to the
inspector general offices described under Section 6(e)(3) of
that Act.
Section 812(a) concerning law enforcement powers of
inspector general agents becomes effective, pursuant to Section
CRS-23
Event Date
Event
812(c)(1) of the act, 180 days after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act.
The Agency Chief Human Capital Officers subchapter,
prescribed in Section 1302, becomes effective, pursuant to
Section 1305 of the act, 180 days after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act.
September 30, 2003
Pursuant to the departmental reorganization plan, any
incidental transfers, pursuant to Section 1516 of the Act, of
personnel, assets, and liabilities held, used, arising from,
available, or to be made available, in connection with the
functions transferred by the act are completed.
November 25, 2003
The Attorney General, pursuant to Section 234(c) of the Act,
submits to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, a report on the implementation of
Subtitle D of Title II of the Act.
The director of the Office of Science and Technology of the
Department of Justice, pursuant to Section 235(d) of the Act,
submits to Congress, not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a report assessing
the effectiveness of the existing system of National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and
identifying the number of such Centers necessary to meet the
technology needs of federal, state, and local law enforcement
in the United States.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
308(b)(2) of the Act and acting through the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, establishes, within one year of the
date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, a
university-based center of centers for homeland security.
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
State, pursuant to Section 428(e)(4), submit to Congress, not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, a report on the implementation of the
subsection concerning the assignment of homeland security
employees to diplomatic and consular posts with any
legislative proposals necessary to further the objectives of the
subsection.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
428(g)(2) of the act, submits to the House Committee on the
Judiciary, House Committee on International Relations, House
Committee on Government Reform, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, a report, not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act, containing the findings of a study of the role of
CRS-24
Event Date
Event
foreign nationals in the granting or refusals of visas and other
documents authorizing the entry of aliens into the United
States.
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 477(d)(3) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, a report, not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act,
examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to carry
out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
479(a) of the Act, submits to the President, House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, House Committee on Government
Reform, and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, a
report, one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act and each year thereafter, on the impact
that transfers made by this subtitle have had on immigration
functions.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section 706
of the Act, develops and submits to Congress, not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act, a plan for consolidating and co-locating
department regional or field offices.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation, pursuant to Section
834(a) of the Act, is revised, within one year of the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act, to include
regulations with regard to unsolicited proposals.
The President, pursuant to Section 893 of the Act, submits, not
later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, a report, to the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on
the implementation of procedures under which relevant federal
agencies share relevant and appropriate homeland security
information with other federal agencies, including the
department and appropriate state and local personnel as
prescribed by Section 892.
January 24, 2004
The Privacy Officer, pursuant to Section 222(5), submits to
Congress, on an annual basis, a report on activities of the
department that affect privacy, including complaints of privacy
violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, internal
controls, and other matters.
The Homeland Security Institute, pursuant to Section 312(f) of
the Act, transmits to the Secretary of Homeland Security and
CRS-25
Event Date
Event
Congress an annual report on its activities.
The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland
Security, pursuant to Section 421(e)(1), enter into an
agreement before the end of the transition period, which is the
12-month period beginning on the effective date of the Act, to
effectuate the transfer of certain agricultural inspection
functions required specified in the section.
The Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to Section 421(g),
transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than
the completion of the transition period, which is the 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of the act, not more than
3,200 full-time equivalent positions of the Department of
Agriculture.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
428(e)(4), submits to Congress, on an annual basis, a report
that describes the basis for each determination that the
assignment of an employee of the department at a particular
diplomatic post would not promote homeland security.
Subsection 428(e) of the Act, concerning the assignment of
homeland security employees to diplomatic and consular posts,
becomes effective one year after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act, pursuant to Section 428(e)(8), unless
the President has previously published notice in the Federal
Register that the President has submitted a report to Congress
setting forth a memorandum of understanding between the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State
governing the implementation of Section 428 of the Act.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section 445
of the Act, submits to the House and Senate Appropriations
and Judiciary Committees, not later than one year after being
sworn into office, a report with a plan detailing how the
Bureau of Border Security, after the transfer of Immigration
and Naturalization Service functions to the department occurs,
will enforce comprehensively, effectively, and fairly all the
enforcement provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act relating to such functions.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section 459
of the Act, submits to the House and Senate Appropriations
and Judiciary Committees, not later than one year after the
effective date of the Homeland Security Act, a report with a
plan detailing how the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, after the transfer of Immigration and Naturalization
Service functions to the department occurs, will complete
efficiently, fairly, and within a reasonable time, adjudications
described in Section 451(b)(1)-(5) of the Act.
CRS-26
Event Date
Event
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
461(a) of the Act, establishes, not later than one year after the
effective date of the Homeland Security Act, and in
consultation with the Technology Advisory Committee, an
Internet-based system that will permit a person, employer,
immigrant, or nonimmigrant who has filed with a Secretary of
Homeland Security for any benefit under the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, access to online information about the
processing status of the filing involved.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
461(b)(2), reports to the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees, not later than one year after the effective date of
the Homeland Security Act, on a feasibility study on an online
filing system mandated by Section 461(a) of the Act.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
705(b) of the Act, submits to the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House, and appropriate committees and
subcommittees of Congress, on an annual basis, a report on the
implementation of the section establishing the Officer for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties.
The Office for National Capital Region Coordination of the
department, pursuant to Section 882(c), submits an annual
report to Congress, including certain specified details.
The Inspector General of the department, pursuant to Section
888(f), reports to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, House Committee on Government Reform, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on an annual
basis, the results of a review assessing thoroughly the
performance by the Coast Guard of all of its missions with a
particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland security
missions.
The Chief Human Capital Officers Council, pursuant to
Section 1302 of the Act at 5 U.S.C. 1303(d), submits to
Congress, on an annual basis, a report on the activities of the
council.
The President’s reorganization plan for the department,
prepared pursuant to Section 1502 of the Act, becomes
effective, pursuant to Section 1502(d), either as specified in
terms of dates included in the plan or at the end of the
transition period, which is 12 months after the effective date of
the Homeland Security Act.
January 31, 2004
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee renders, pursuant to Section 311(h)(1), an annual
CRS-27
Event Date
Event
report, describing the activities and recommendations of the
committee during the previous year, to the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology for transmittal to Congress on or
before January 31 of each year.
February 2, 2004
The director of the Office of Science and Technology of the
Department of Justice, pursuant to Section 232(g) of the Act,
prepares a report on the activities of the Office, to be included
with the President’s budget as submitted to Congress not later
than the first Monday in February of each year (31 U.S.C.
1105(a)).
March 1, 2004
The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border Security,
pursuant to Section 442(a)(5)(A), designs and implements, not
later than one year after the transfer of Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) functions to the bureau, a
managerial rotation program under which bureau employees
holding positions involving supervisory or managerial
responsibility gain some experience in all major functions
performed by the bureau and work in at least one local office
of the bureau. According to the reorganization plan, INS
functions are transferred to the department on March 1, 2003.
The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, pursuant to Section 451(a)(4)(A), designs and
implements, not later than one year after the transfer of
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) functions to the
bureau, a managerial rotation program under which bureau
employees holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility gain some experience in all major
functions performed by the bureau and work in at least one
local office of the bureau. According to the reorganization
plan, INS functions are transferred to the department on March
1, 2003.
March 31, 2004
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 857 of the Act, reports to the House Committee on
Government Reform and Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, not later than March 31, 2004, the results of a review
of the extent to which procurements of property and services
have been made in accordance with the federal emergency
procurement flexibility authority prescribed in Sections 851856 of the Act.
May 25, 2004
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
427(c), in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and head of each
other department or agency determined to be appropriate by
the Secretary of Homeland Security, submits to Congress, not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act, a report on the coordination of
information and information technology described in the
section and a plan to complete implementation of the section.
CRS-28
Event Date
Event
September 1, 2004
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 477(d)(1) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
Appropriations and Judiciary Committees, not later than 18
months after the date on which Immigration and Naturalization
Service functions are transferred to the department, and every
six months thereafter, a status report on the transition and
related matters specified in the section.
November 25, 2004
The requirement in Section 424a of the Act, that the
Transportation Security Administration be maintained as a
distinct entity within the department under the Under Secretary
for Border Transportation and Security, ceases, pursuant to
Section 424b of the Act, to apply two years after the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act.
The Chief Human Capital Officer, pursuant to Section 704(3)
of the Act, informs Congress, not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, of
achieving certification from the Office of Special Counsel of
the Department of Homeland Security’s compliance with
Section 2302(c) of Title 5, United States Code.
January 24, 2005
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 831(b) of the Act, reports to the House Committee on
Government Reform and Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, not later than two years after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act and annually thereafter, concerning the
use of the research and development projects authority
provided in Section 831(a) of the Act.
February 1, 2005
The homeland security funding analysis required by Section
889 for inclusion in the President’s budget submission to
Congress becomes effective, pursuant to Section 889(c), with
the FY2005 budget submission.
March 1, 2005
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
442(a)(5)(B), submits to Congress, not later than two years
after the transfer of Immigration and Naturalization Service
functions to the department, a report on the implementation of
a managerial rotation program under which Bureau of Border
Security employees holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility gain some experience in all major
functions performed by the bureau and work in at least one
local office of the bureau. According to the reorganization
plan, Immigration and Naturalization Service functions are
transferred to the department by March 1, 2003.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
451(a)(4)(B), submits to Congress, not later than two years
after the transfer of Immigration and Naturalization Service
functions to the department, a report on the implementation of
a managerial rotation program under which Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services employees holding
CRS-29
Event Date
Event
positions involving supervisory or managerial responsibility
gain some experience in all major functions performed by the
bureau and work in at least one local office of the bureau.
According to the reorganization plan, Immigration and
Naturalization Service functions are transferred to the
department by March 1, 2003.
May 1, 2005
Each budget request submitted to Congress for the department
under Section 1105 of Title 31, United States Code, shall,
pursuant to Section 874 of the Act, at or about the same time,
be accompanied by a Future Years Homeland Security
Program, effective with the submission of the FY2005 budget
request for the department and for any subsequent fiscal year,
except the first such program submission shall be not later than
90 days after the department’s FY2005 submission to
Congress.
March 28, 2006
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 833(e) of the Act, reports to the House Committee on
Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, not later than 180 days after the end of
FY2005, on the use of the special streamlined acquisition
authority prescribed in the section.
March 1, 2007
The Comptroller General of the United States, pursuant to
Section 477(d)(2) of the Act, submits to the House and Senate
Appropriations and Judiciary Committees, a report, not later
than four years after the transfer of Immigration and
Naturalization Service functions to the department, on
improvements in the management, financial administration,
and other matters regarding such functions.
September 30, 2007
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
833(a)(1) of the Act, may use special streamlined acquisition
authority prescribed in the section beginning on the effective
date of the Homeland Security Act and ending September 30,
2007.
November 25, 2007
The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
pursuant to Section 473 of the Act, conduct, not later than five
years after the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security
Act, a demonstration project for the purpose of determining
whether one or more changes in the policies or procedures
relating to methods for disciplining employees would result in
improved personnel management.
January 24, 2008
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to Section
831(a) of the Act, may carry out a pilot program, during the
five-year period after the effective date of the Homeland
Security Act, of prototype projects in accordance with the
requirements and conditions provided for same under Section
845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1994.
CRS-30
Event Date
Event
January 24, 2009
The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
director of the Office of Personnel Management to prescribe
regulations jointly for a department human resources
management system under Section 841 of the Act expires,
pursuant to Section 9701(h) of Title 5, United States Code,
five years after the conclusion of the transition period defined
in Section 1501 of the Act.
Congressional Oversight. By one estimate, “[a]t least 11 full committees
in the Senate and 14 full committees in the House — as well as their numerous
subcommittees — claim oversight or some responsibility for various U.S. programs
for combating terrorism.”56 In the House, the President’s legislative proposal for a
Department of Homeland Security was referred to 12 standing committees deemed
to have some jurisdiction over the legislation. These situations suggested that many
House and Senate committees and subcommittees could conduct oversight of the
administration and operations of the Department of Homeland Security. However,
during its initial organization meeting, when adopting new rules, the House agreed
to the establishment, for the duration of the 108th Congress, of a Select Committee
on Homeland Security. The panel, whose members were appointed by the Speaker,
had legislative authority and was mandated to “review and study on a continuing
basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to homeland security.”57
Some additional oversight was conducted by other House standing committees. The
Senate relied largely upon the Committee on Governmental Affairs for oversight, but
this did not preclude oversight efforts by other committees. On February 11, 2003,
the House Committee on Appropriations reorganized its subcommittees, creating a
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, with jurisdiction over the agencies and
programs of the new department, and a reconfigured Subcommittee on
Transportation and Treasury. A similar subcommittee reorganization occurred within
the Senate Committee on Appropriations a few weeks later, in early March 2003.
The periodic authorization of the expenditure of appropriated funds by the
Department of Homeland Security for its programs and operations provides one basis
for oversight. GAO audits and reviews of the accounts and activities of the
Department of Homeland Security also fostered and assisted oversight efforts. For
example, in early April 2003, a GAO study found that traditional Coast Guard duties
had suffered as it turned its focus to homeland security responsibilities.58
As the second year of oversight began, the focus shifted from the start-up of the
department and its general administrative operations and overall organizational
arrangements to particular programs, areas of concern, and intergovernmental
relations — as reflected in a report prepared by the minority party members of the
56
U.S. Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Second Annual Report: Toward a National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism (Arlington, VA: Rand Corporation, Dec. 15, 2001), p. vii.
57
58
See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, Jan. 7, 2003, p. H10.
Christopher Lee, “Traditional Coast Guard Duties Suffer, Study Says,” Washington Post,
Apr. 2, 2003, p. A15.
CRS-31
House Select Committee.59 Also, January 2004 found the House Select Committee
examining ways to measure how spending on homeland security was deterring
terrorists, and beginning to design a homeland security authorization bill similar to
the annual defense authorization legislation. Earlier, in November 2003, the
committee had begun exploring performance measures, priorities, and reporting
requirements for the department.
In May 2004, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security received
testimony from DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy, who told the panel the
department’s most important management task at the moment was bringing its
headquarters employees — scattered in 38 different places across the Washington
area — into one location. Personnel who answered directly to Secretary Ridge had
been moving to the DHS temporary headquarters located at the U.S. Naval Security
Station near American University in northwest Washington.60 At that time, a
proposal was reportedly being developed by the committee to reorganize DHS by
moving the Management Directorate into the office of Deputy Secretary Loy so that
some management officials, such as the CIO, would report directly to the Deputy
Secretary. The change, proponents thought, would foster better integration of the
department’s components. The CIO, for example, would be able to more effectively
forge an integrated enterprise architecture for DHS and better coordinate other
information technology functions.
The first authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security (H.R.
4852) was introduced on July 19, 2004, by Representative Christopher Cox, but an
attempt to mark up the measure immediately within the Select Committee on
Homeland Security stalled due to differences over how action on the measure should
proceed. Among the provisions in the legislation for improving homeland security
management and coordination among federal agencies, as well as state and local
governments, was one relocating the department’s Management Directorate to the
office of the department’s deputy secretary, with the result that some management
officials, such as the CIO, would report directly to the deputy secretary. Another
provision mandated an interagency Homeland Security Information Requirements
Board, chaired by the secretary, to oversee the establishment of homeland security
requirements and collection management for all terrorism-related and other homeland
security information, and to prioritize the collection and use of such information.
Also, in July 2004, GAO recommended to Congress that DHS be made subject
to the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which requires
agencies to place a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Chief Financial
Officer in charge of developing and maintaining an integrated accounting system
capable of providing accurate and timely financial data to program managers.61 At
59
America at Risk: The State of Homeland Security — Initial Findings, prepared by the
Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security (Washington:
January 2004), available at [http://www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/].
60
Eileen Sullivan, “Centralizing Headquarters is Homeland’s Top Priority,” Federal Times,
May 10, 2004, p. 15.
61
U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Management: Department of Homeland
(continued...)
CRS-32
that time, other financial management accountability legislation for DHS (H.R.
4259/S. 1567) was pending finalization by the House and the Senate, and it
ultimately became law in October.62
Other than creating specialized appropriations subcommittees for homeland
security and experimenting with a select committee on homeland security in the
House, the 108th Congress, by one assessment, “balked at consolidating committee
jurisdictions when it comes to overseeing the $39 billion Department of Homeland
Security and its constituent agencies.”63 This resistance occurred in the face of
recommendations by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States for such consolidation and streamlining not only for more effective oversight,
but also to overcome the existing difficulties posed by DHS leaders being subject to
appearing before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress.64 The Senate, in
October 2004, vested the Committee on Governmental Affairs with broadened
jurisdiction for DHS matters and expanded the panel’s name to reflect this change.
This modification, however, was thought to have provided the committee
“authorization authority over only 38 percent of the department’s budget and 8
percent of its 175,000 employees.”65 A Washington Post editorial appearing in late
December, while counting 79 congressional oversight panels having some
jurisdiction over homeland security matters, found a situation in need of reform:
“Department officials spend too much time responding to their many congressional
masters; last year alone, according to departing secretary Tom Ridge, he and other
top department officials testified 145 times before various committees and
subcommittees.” The editorial concluded with the comment that how congressional
committee structure is shaped to address homeland security “will be one of the first
big tests of the 109th Congress — and one that will affect America’s ability to deal
with the threat of terrorism for many Congresses to come.”66
The Homeland Security Act contains a number of provisions prescribing actions
and requiring reports to Congress by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Department
of Homeland Security officials, other executive branch officials, and the General
Accounting Office. Valuable for congressional oversight, these provisions are
identified in Table 3.
61
(...continued)
Security Faces Significant Financial Management Challenges, GAO Report GAO-04-774
(Washington: July 2004).
62
118 Stat. 1275.
63
Walter Pincus, “Congress Resists Key Recommendation of 9/11 Panel,” Washington Post,
Jan. 1, 2005, p. A3.
64
U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11
Commission Report (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 419-421.
65
Pincus, “Congress Resists Key Recommendation of 9/11 Panel,” p. A3.
66
Editorial, “Homeland Security Oversight,” Washington Post, Dec. 28, 2004, p. A18.
CRS-33
Table 3. Homeland Security Act Action and Reporting
Requirements
Section
Action or Requirement
§214(e)
Not later than 90 days after the enactment of Subtitle B of Title
II of the Homeland Security Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall, in consultation with appropriate representatives
of the National Security Council and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, establish uniform procedures for the
receipt, care, and storage by federal agencies of critical
infrastructure information that is voluntarily submitted to the
government.
§222(5)
The Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security
shall prepare and submit a report to Congress on an annual basis
on activities of the department that affect privacy, including
complaints of privacy violations, implementation of the Privacy
Act of 1974, internal controls, and other matters.
§225(c)
Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall submit a brief report to Congress that
explains any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in
response to this section, known as the Cyber Security
Enhancement Act of 2002, and includes any recommendations
the commission may have regarding statutory penalties for
offenses under 18 U.S.C. 1030.
§232(g)
The director of the Office of Science and Technology,
Department of Justice, shall include with the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Justice budget for each fiscal year a report on the
activities of the office, including certain specified details.
§234(c)
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the implementation of Subtitle D of Title II of the Act,
including certain specified details.
§235(d)
Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
director of the Office of Science and Technology, Department
of Justice, shall submit to Congress a report assessing the
effectiveness of the existing system of National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers, authorized
by the section, and identify the number of centers necessary to
meet the technology needs of federal, state, and local law
enforcement in the United States.
CRS-34
Section
Action or Requirement
§306(d)
Not later than 60 days before effecting any transfer of
Department of Energy life sciences activities pursuant to
Section 303(1)(D) (which is March 1, 2003, according to the
President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization plan), the
President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees
of the proposed transfer and shall include the reasons for the
transfer and a description of the effect of the transfer on the
activities of the Department of Energy.
§308(b)(2)
Within one year of the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the Secretary of
Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall establish a university-based
center or centers for homeland security.
§308(b)(2)(C)
The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to establish
university-based centers and to consider additional criteria as
necessary to meet the evolving needs of homeland security and
shall report to Congress concerning the implementation of this
provision.
§308(c)(3)(E)
If the Secretary of Homeland Security chooses to establish a
headquarters laboratory, a report shall be made to appropriate
congressional committees on which laboratory was so selected,
how the selected laboratory meets the published criteria, and
what duties the headquarters laboratory shall perform.
§310(d)(1)
At least 180 days before any change in the biosafety level at the
Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the President shall notify
Congress of the change and describe the reasons for the change.
§311(h)(1)
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee shall render an annual report to the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security,
for transmittal to Congress on or before January 31 of each
year, and such report shall describe the activities and
recommendations of the advisory committee during the
previous year.
§311(h)(2)
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee, in addition to its annual report, may render to the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of
Homeland Security, for transmittal to Congress such additional
reports on specific policy matters as it considers appropriate.
§311(j)
The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Advisory Committee terminates three years after the effective
date of the Homeland Security Act (which was January 24,
2003).
§312(f)
The Homeland Security Institute shall transmit to the Secretary
of Homeland Security and Congress an annual report on the
activities of the Institute.
CRS-35
Section
Action or Requirement
§312(g)
The Homeland Security Institute terminates three years after the
effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which was
January 24, 2002).
§416
Not later than three months after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act (which was January 24, 2003), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
Congress a report that sets forth all trade functions performed
by the executive branch, specifying each agency that performs
each such function.
§417(b)
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on
Finance at least 90 days prior to taking any action which would
(1) result in any significant reduction in customs revenue
services, including hours of operation, provided at any office
within the department or any port of entry; (2) eliminate or
relocate any office of the department which provides customs
revenue services; or (3) eliminates any port of entry.
§418(a)
The United States Customs Service shall, on and after the
effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which was
January 24, 2003), continue to submit to the House Committee
on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance any
report required, on the day before the effective date of the act,
to be so submitted under any provision of law.
§418(b)
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on
Finance of proposed conforming amendments to the statutes set
forth under Section 412(a)(2) in order to determine the
appropriate allocation of legal authorities described under this
subsection. The Secretary of the Treasury shall also identify
those authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that are
exercised by the Commissioner of Customs on or before the
effective date of this section.
§421(e)(1)
Before the end of the transition period, which is the 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of the Homeland Security
Act (which was January 24, 2003), the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into an
agreement to effectuate the transfer of certain agricultural
inspection functions as specified in the section.
§421(g)
Not later than the completion of the transition period, which is
the 12-month period beginning on the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act (which was January 24, 2003), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of
Homeland Security not more than 3,200 full-time equivalent
positions of the Department of Agriculture.
CRS-36
Section
Action or Requirement
§423(b)
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress a report
containing a plan for complying with the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 44901(d), as amended by Section 425 of the Homeland
Security Act.
§424
Two years after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the requirement
that the Transportation Security Administration be maintained
as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security
expires.
§425
Amendments to 49 U.S.C. 44901(d) specify:
— the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall
submit to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation a detailed plan, which may be
submitted in security classified form, for the deployment
of the number of explosive detection systems necessary to
meet prescribed requirements as soon as practicable but in
no event later than December 31, 2003; and
— until the Transportation Security Administration has met
prescribed explosive detection systems requirements, the
Under Secretary for Transportation Security shall submit a
security classified report every 30 days after the date of
the enactment of the Homeland Security Act (which was
November 25, 2002) to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
describing the progress made toward meeting such
requirements at each airport.
§427(c)
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and head of such other department or agency
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, shall submit to Congress a report on the progress
made in implementing information and information technology
coordination arrangements prescribed in the section and a plan
to complete implementation of same.
§428(e)(4)
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, on an annual basis,
submit a report to Congress that describes the basis for each
determination that the assignment of an employee of the
Department of Homeland Security at a particular diplomatic
post for visa issuance duties would not promote homeland
security.
CRS-37
Section
Action or Requirement
§428(e)(7)
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall
submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the visa
issuance program with any legislative proposals necessary to
further the objectives of the program.
§428(g)
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study of
the role of foreign nationals in the granting or refusal of visas
and other documents authorizing the entry of aliens into the
United States, including certain specified details. Not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit a report containing the findings
of the aforementioned study to the House Government Reform,
International Relations, and Judiciary Committees and the
Senate Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, and Judiciary
Committees.
§428(h)
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Executive Office of the President, shall submit to Congress a
report on how the provisions of the visa issuance program will
affect procedures for the issuance of student visas.
§442(a)(5)
Not later than one year after the date on which the transfer of
the immigration enforcement functions specified in Section 441
takes effect (which is March 1, 2003, according to the
President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization plan), the
assistant secretary of the Bureau of Border Security shall design
and implement a management rotation program under which
bureau employees holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility of grade GS-14 and above shall gain
some experience in all of the major functions performed by the
bureau and work in at least one local office of the bureau. Not
later than two years after the date on which the transfer of the
immigration enforcement functions specified in Section 441
takes effect (which is March 1, 2003, according to the
President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization plan), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to
Congress on the implementation of the management rotation
program.
CRS-38
Section
Action or Requirement
§445(a)
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than one year
after being sworn into office (which was January 24, 2003, for
Secretary Tom Ridge), shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate a
report with a plan detailing how the Bureau of Border Security,
after the transfer of immigration enforcement functions
specified in Section 441 takes effect (which is March 1, 2003,
according to the President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization
plan), will enforce comprehensively, effectively, and fairly all
the enforcement provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) relating to such functions.
§451(a)(4)
Not later than one year after the date on which the transfer of
the functions specified in Section 441 takes effect (which is
March 1, 2003, according to the President’s November 25,
2002, reorganization plan), the director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall design and
implement a management rotation program under which bureau
employees holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility of grade GS-14 and above shall gain
some experience in all of the major functions performed by the
bureau and work in at least one local office of the bureau. Not
later than two years after the date on which the transfer of the
functions specified in Section 441 takes effect (which is March
1, 2003, according to the President’s November 25, 2002,
reorganization plan), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the
management rotation program. (Section 455 prescribes that
Sections 451-456 shall take effect on the date that the transfer
of the functions specified in Section 441 takes effect.)
§452(c)
Not later than June 30 of each calendar year, the Citizenship
and Immigration Services Ombudsman shall report directly to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House and Senate on the
objectives of the office of the ombudsman for the fiscal year
beginning in such calendar year, including certain specified
details.
§458
Amends Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)(1))
to extend the immigration benefit backlog elimination deadline
to one year after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act
(which was November 25, 2002).
§459
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than one year
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which
was January 24, 2003), shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate a
report with a plan detailing how the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, after the transfer of functions takes
effect, will complete efficiently, fairly, and within a reasonable
time, the adjudications described in paragraphs (1) through (5)
of Section 451(b).
CRS-39
Section
Action or Requirement
§460
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on changes
in law, including changes in authorizations of appropriations
and in appropriations that are needed to permit the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, and, after the transfer of functions
takes effect (which is March 1, 2003, according to the
President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization plan), the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, to ensure a
prompt and timely response to emergent, unforeseen, or
impending changes in the number of applications for
immigration benefits, and otherwise to ensure the
accommodation of changing immigration service needs.
§461
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than one year
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which
was January 24, 2003), shall establish an Internet based system
that will permit access to online information about the
processing status of filings for immigration benefits. Moreover,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a feasibility
study of online filing for immigration benefits. A report on this
study shall be submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House and Senate not later than one year after the effective
date of the Homeland Security Act.
§471(a)
Upon completion of all transfers from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (which is March 1, 2003, according to
the President’s November 25, 2002, reorganization plan), that
agency is abolished.
§472(b)
Before the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland
Security obligates any resources for voluntary separation
incentive payments authorized by the section, such official shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a strategic
restructuring plan, including specified details.
§473(f)
The General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit to the
House Committees on Government Reform and the Judiciary
and the Senate Committees on Governmental Affairs and the
Judiciary periodic reports on any disciplinary act demonstration
project authorized by the section, such reports to be submitted
after the second and fourth years of operation.
§477(a)
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 120 days
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which
was January 24, 2003), shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate a
report on the proposed division and transfer of funds, including
unexpended funds, appropriations, and fees, between the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Border Security.
CRS-40
Section
Action or Requirement
§477(b)
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 120 days
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which
was January 24, 2003), shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate a
report on the proposed division of personnel between the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Border Security.
§477(c)
The Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 120 days
after the effective date of the Homeland Security Act (which
was January 24, 2003), and every six months thereafter until the
termination of FY2005, shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate an
implementation plan regarding the separation of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security, including certain specified details.
§477(d)(1)
Not later than 18 months after the date on which the transfer of
functions specified in Section 411 takes effect (which is March
1, 2003, according to the President’s November 25, 2002,
reorganization plan), and every six months thereafter until full
implementation has been completed, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House and Senate a
report on the transition, including certain specified details.
§477(d)(2)
Not later than four years after the date on which the transfer of
functions specified in Section 411 takes effect (which is March
1, 2003, according to the President’s November 25, 2002,
reorganization plan), the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and
the Judiciary of the House and Senate a report on the
management improvements resulting from the transfer of
functions from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the
Bureau of Border Security, including certain specified details
and recommendations for improvements.
§477(d)(3)
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House and Senate a report
examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to carry
out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.
CRS-41
Section
Action or Requirement
§478(a)
One year after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), and each year
thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a
report to the President, the House Government Reform and
Judiciary Committees, and the Senate Governmental Affairs
and Judiciary Committees on the impact that the transfer of
Immigration and Naturalization Service functions made by
Subtitle F has had on immigration functions, including certain
specified details.
§507(b)(2)
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
revise the Federal Response Plan (established under E.O. 12148
and E.O. 12656) to reflect the establishment of and incorporate
the Department of Homeland Security.
§601(f)
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney
General, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the Director of Central Intelligence, shall prescribe regulations
to carry out Title VI concerning charitable trusts for members
of the armed forces of the United States and other governmental
organizations.
§704(3)
Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Chief Human Capital Officer of the Department of Homeland
Security shall inform Congress of having achieved certification
from the Office of Special Counsel of the department’s
compliance with 5 U.S.C. 2302(c).
§705(b)
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the
appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress on an
annual basis a report on the implementation of the section
establishing an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
including certain specified details.
§706
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and submit to
Congress a plan for consolidating and co-locating regional or
field offices of agencies transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security or portions of regional and field offices of
other federal agencies, to the extent that such offices perform
functions that were transferred to the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
CRS-42
Section
Action or Requirement
§812(b)(2)
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Attorney General shall promulgate guidelines pursuant to the
Inspector General Act of 1978 regarding law enforcement
powers of inspector general agents.
§831(b)
Not later than two years after the effective date of the
Homeland Security Act (which was January 24, 2003), and
annually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall report to the House Committee on Government
Reform and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
whether the Secretary of Homeland Security’s use of the
section’s research and development authorities attracts
nontraditional government contractors and results in the
acquisition of needed technologies, and, if such authorities were
to be made permanent, whether additional safeguards are
needed with respect to the use of such authorities.
§833(e)
Not later than 180 days after the end of FY2005, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs a report on the use of the
special streamlined acquisition authority provided in the
section, including certain specified details.
§834(a)
Within one year of the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be
revised to include regulations with regard to unsolicited
proposals.
§841
An amendment to Subpart I of Part III of Title 5, United States
Code, establishing a human resources management system for
the Department of Homeland Security requires (Section
9701(e)(1)(B)(i)) the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
director of the Office of Personnel Management to notify
Congress of those parts of the human resources management
system proposal or adjustments to same to which they have not
accepted recommendations by employee representatives, and
(Section 9701(e)(1)(C)(iii)) the Secretary of Homeland Security
to notify Congress promptly of the implementation of any part
of the human resources management system proposal or
adjustments to same to which they have not accepted
recommendations by employee representatives, and furnish with
such notice an explanation of the proposal, any changes made to
the proposal as a result of recommendations from employee
representatives, and the reasons why implementation is
appropriate.
§855(b)(2)
The director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
issue guidance and procedures for the use of simplified
acquisition procedures for a purchase of property or services in
excess of $5,000,000 under the authority of this section.
CRS-43
Section
Action or Requirement
§857
Not later than March 31, 2004, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall complete a review of the extent to which
procurements of property and services have been made in
accordance with the federal emergency procurement flexibility
provisions of Subtitle F, which shall include certain specified
details and shall address specific issues and topics identified in
consultations with the House Committee on Government
Reform and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
and the results of such review, together with relevant
recommendations, shall be reported to the committees so
consulted.
§873(c)
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1105, the President shall submit to
Congress a detailed budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security for FY2004, and for each subsequent fiscal
year.
§874
Each budget request submitted to Congress for the Department
of Homeland Security pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1105 shall, at or
about the same time, be accompanied by a Future Years
Homeland Security Program, modeled after the Future Years
Defense Program mandated by 10 U.S.C. 221, effective with
respect to the preparation and submission of the FY2005 budget
request for the department and for any subsequent fiscal year,
except that the first such program shall be submitted not later
than 90 days after the department’s FY2005 budget request is
submitted to Congress.
§881
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall review
the pay and benefit plans of each agency whose functions are
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and, within
90 days after the date of the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), shall submit a
plan to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House,
and the appropriate committees and subcommittees of
Congress, for ensuring, to the maximum extent practicable, the
elimination of disparities in pay and benefits throughout the
department.
§882(c)
The Office for National Capital Region Coordination,
Department of Homeland Security, shall submit an annual
report to Congress that includes (1) the identification of the
resources required to implement fully homeland security efforts
in the National Capital Region, (2) an assessment of the
progress made by the National Capital Region in implementing
homeland security efforts; and (3) recommendations to
Congress regarding the additional resources needed to
implement fully homeland security efforts in the National
Capital Region.
CRS-44
Section
Action or Requirement
§888(f)
The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
shall conduct an annual review that shall assess thoroughly the
performance by the Coast Guard of all of its missions with a
particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland security
missions and shall report the results of this review to the House
Appropriations, Government Reform, and Transportation and
Infrastructure Committees and the Senate Appropriations,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Governmental
Affairs Committees.
§888(i)
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall submit a report to the
House Appropriations and Transportation and Infrastructure
Committees and the Senate Appropriations and Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committees concerning certain
specified aspects of the Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater
System.
§889
Beginning with the FY2005 submission, the President’s budget
shall include a homeland security funding analysis as specified
in amendments to 31 U.S.C. 1105(a).
§893
Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
President shall submit to the House Permanent Select
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and the Senate Select
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees a report on the
implementation of Section 892 concerning procedures
facilitating homeland security information sharing between and
among federal, state, and local entities.
§1001
(The provisions of this section, amending Subchapter II of
Chapter 35, United States Code, are overridden by similar
provisions of Section 301 of the E-Government Act of 2002
(116 Stat. 2899), which, in relevant part, are set out below. The
requirements take effect on the date of the enactment of the EGovernment Act (which was December 17, 2002).)
Section 301 amends Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code,
(35 U.S.C. 3543(a)(8)) to require the director of the Office of
Management and Budget to report to Congress no later than
March 1 of each year on agency compliance with the
information security requirements of the subchapter, including
certain specified details. Another such amendment (35 U.S.C.
3544(c)) requires each agency to report annually to the director
of the Office of Management and Budget, the House
Government Reform and Science Committees, the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Governmental
Affairs Committees, the appropriate authorization and
appropriations committees of Congress, and the Comptroller
General of the United States on information security matters as
specified in the subsection. Another such amendment (35
CRS-45
Section
Action or Requirement
U.S.C. 3545(e)) requires each agency, each year, not later than
the date established by the director of the Office of
Management and Budget, to submit to the director the results of
an annual independent information security evaluation required
by the section, and a summary of the results of these evaluations
is provided to Congress (35 U.S.C. 3545(g)) in the
aforementioned annual report of the director.
§1003
(The provisions of this section, amending Section 20 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278g-3), are overridden by similar provisions of Section 303 of
the E-Government Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2899), which, in
relevant part, are set out below. The requirement takes effect
on the date of the enactment of the E-Government Act (which
was December 17, 2002).)
Section 303 amends the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(d)(10)) to require the
Institute to prepare an annual public report on activities
undertaken in the previous year, and planned for the coming
year, to carry out information security responsibilities under the
section.
§1005
(The provisions of this section, amending the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), are overridden by
similar provisions of Section 305 of the E-Government Act of
2002 (116 Stat. 2899), which, in relevant part, are set out
below. The requirement takes effect on the date of the
enactment of the E-Government Act (which was December 17,
2002).)
Section 305 amends the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C.3505(c)(4)) to require the director of the Office of
Management and Budget to issue guidance for, and oversee the
implementation of, the major information systems inventory
requirement of the subsection.
§1204
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a report
on war risk insurance as detailed in the section.
§1302
Amends Part II of Title 5, United States Code, to establish a
Chief Human Capital Officers Council, which is required (5
U.S.C. 1303(d)) each year to submit a report to Congress on the
activities of the council.
CRS-46
Section
Action or Requirement
§1403(c)(2)
Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of a study to evaluate the
benefits and risks of providing flight attendants with nonlethal
weapons to aide in combating air piracy and criminal violence
on commercial airlines.
§1404
The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a commercial
airline security study, including certain specified details, the
results of which, not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act (which was November
25, 2002), shall be transmitted to Congress in a report which
may be submitted in security classified and redacted form.
§1502
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act (which was November 25, 2002), the
President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional
committees a reorganization plan, including certain specified
details.
Refining the Mandate
With the final adjournment of the 108th Congress, various bills to refine the
mandate of the Department of Homeland Security by modifying or supplementing the
Homeland Security Act were pending. Such proposals included the following
measures.
H.R. 484 (Ose). H.R. 484 amends the Homeland Security Act to give the
Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to establish criteria for the creation of
university-based centers for homeland security, to repeal certain vaccine liability
protection provisions, and to modify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland
Security regarding contract waivers required in the interest of homeland security.
Introduced January 29, 2003, and referred to the Select Committee on Homeland
Security and Committees on Energy and Commerce, Science, and Government
Reform.
H.R. 1416 (Cox). H.R. 1416 amends the Homeland Security Act to make
technical corrections. Introduced March 25, 2003, and referred to the Select
Committee on Homeland Security. Hearing held March 28; markup held and bill
ordered to be reported March 31; reported with amendments (H.Rept. 108-104) and
placed on Union Calendar May 15; considered under suspension of the rules and
subsequently adopted on a 415-0 roll call vote June 24; received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs June 25; ordered to be reported
favorably with an amendment October 22, 2003; reported with amendment (S.Rept.
108-214) and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar November 25.
S. 6 (Daschle). S. 6 establishes various new responsibilities and programs
for the Department of Homeland Security, makes the department subject to the
CRS-47
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and reorganizes the intelligence community
leadership. Introduced January 7, 2003, and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
S. 28 (Nelson). S. 28 gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to
establish criteria for the creation of university-based centers for homeland security.
Introduced January 7, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
S. 41 (Lieberman). S. 41 modifies provisions of the Homeland Security Act
regarding product liability protection, federal advisory committee meetings, and
university-based homeland security research centers, and for other purposes.
Introduced January 7, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
S. 45 (Feingold). S. 45 modifies the organization and operations of the Office
for State and Local Government Coordination of the Department of Homeland
Security. Introduced January 7, 2003, and referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
S. 134 (Dayton). S. 134 amends the Homeland Security Act regarding
waivers of certain prohibitions on contracts with corporate expatriates. Introduced
January 7, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
S. 910 (Akaka). S. 910 ensures the continuation of non-homeland security
functions of federal agencies transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
Introduced April 11, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs;
marked up and ordered to be reported, with an amendment, by the committee June
17; reported (S.Rept. 108-115) with amendments July 29 and placed on the Senate
legislative calendar.
Related Congressional Literature
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Creating the
Department of Homeland Security: Consideration of the Administration’s
Proposal. Hearings. June 25 and July 9, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform. The Department of
Homeland Security: An Overview of the President’s Proposal. Hearing. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. June 20, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations. Homeland Security
Act of 2002. Hearing and markup on H.R. 5005. 107th Congress, 2nd session.
June 26 and July 10, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on
Administrative Law. Adjudicatory Issues, and Privacy Ramifications of
Creating a Department of Homeland Security. Hearing. 107th Congress, 2nd
session. July 9, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
CRS-48
——. Homeland Security Act of 2002. Hearing on H.R. 5005. 107th Congress,
2ndsession. June 26, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
——. Privacy in the Hands of the Government: the Privacy Officer for the
Department of Homeland Security. Hearing. 108th Congress, 2nd session.
February 10, 2004. Washington: GPO, 2004.
——. Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. Hearings. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. July 9, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Amendment and Views to the Select
Committee on Homeland Security on H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (Including Committee Markup of H.R. 5005). Committee print. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. July 10, 17, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
——. Creating a Department of Homeland Security. Hearing, 107th Congress, 2nd
session. June 27, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2003.
U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 5005, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Days 1 and 2. Hearings, 107th Congress, 2nd
session. July 15, 16, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
——. Homeland Security Act of 2002. Report to accompany H.R. 5005. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. H.Rept. 107-609, part 1. Washington: GPO, 2002.
——. Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. Report to accompany
H.R. 1416. 108th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept. 108-104. Washington: GPO,
2003.
——. Transforming the Federal Government to Protect America from Terrorism.
Hearing. 107th Congress, 2nd session. July 11, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Homeland
Security. Hearing. 107th Congress, 2nd session. July 10, 2002. Washington:
GPO, 2002.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Creating
the Department of Homeland Security. Hearing. 107th Congress, 2nd session.
July 10, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2004.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. President Bush’s
Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. Hearing. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. June 20, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002.
——. Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003. Report to
accompany S. 910. 108th Congress, 2nd sess. S.Rept. 108-115. Washington:
GPO, 2003.
CRS-49
U.S. Congress. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Homeland
Security. Hearing. 107th Congress, 2nd session. July 16, 2002. Washington:
GPO, 2002.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report RL31802. Appropriations for FY2004: Department of Homeland
Security, by (name redacted) and Dennis W. Snook.
CRS Report RL32302. Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland
Security, by (name redacted) and Dennis Snook.
CRS Report RL31520. Collective Bargaining and Homeland Security, by (name
redacted).
CRS Report RL31549. Department of Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border
and Transportation Security Agencies, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21367. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security, by (name redacted), William Krouse, (name
redacted), Wayne Morrissey, and (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21270. Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Research and
Development: Funding, Organization, and Oversight, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21295. Homeland Security and the Davis-Bacon Act, by (name
redacted).
CRS Report RL31493. Homeland Security: Department Organization and
Management — Legislative Phase, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL31500. Homeland Security: Human Resources Management, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RS21283. Homeland Security: Intelligence Support, by Richard A.
Best, Jr.
CRS Report RS21450. Homeland Security: Scope of the Secretary’s Reorganization
Authority, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL31148. Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office,
by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21260. Information Technology (IT) Management: The ClingerCohen Act and Homeland Security Proposals, by (name redacted).
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.