# Homeland Security: Compendium of Recommendations Relevant to House Committee Organization and Analysis of Considerations for the House, and 109th and 110th Congresses Epilogue > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32711 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** March 2, 2007 - **Citation:** RL32711 ## Text ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱ ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱŽ•ŽŸŠ—ȱ˜ȱ ˜žœŽȱ ˜––’ŽŽȱ›Š—’£Š’˜—ȱŠ—ȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ˜ȱ ˜—œ’Ž›Š’˜—œȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ ˜žœŽǰȱŠ—ȱŗŖş‘ȱŠ—ȱ ŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›ŽœœŽœȱ™’•˜žŽȱ ’Œ‘ŠŽ•ȱǯȱ ˜Ž–™Ž•ȱ Ž—’˜›ȱ™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—ȱŠ’˜—Š•ȱ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—ȱ Š›Œ‘ȱŘǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ řŘŝŗŗȱ ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ž––Š›¢ȱ This report has been updated with an epilogue on the creation of a standing House Committee on Homeland Security in the 109th Congress, the election of a new chair September 15, 2005, and the committee’s organization in the 110th Congress. The original report was not changed; its summary follows: The 9/11 Commission and other commissions and think tanks studying homeland security recommended congressional committee reorganization to increase Congress’s policy and oversight coordination. This report analyzes selected recommendations relevant to House committee reorganization. In the 108th Congress, the House created a Select Committee on Homeland Security, and charged it with studying the rules of the House with respect to the issue of homeland security. The select committee recommended a standing Committee on Homeland Security. This report digests the select committee’s recommendations. Before the select committee made its recommendations, one of its subcommittees held four hearings on Perspectives on House Reform. To analyze the content of these hearings, this report organizes the testimony into 10 categories. One consideration in creating a homeland security committee relates to the concentration or dispersal of homeland security jurisdiction. The House at different times has made different decisions about concentrating or dispersing jurisdiction. A second consideration in creating a homeland security committee relates to implications of jurisdictional changes. Proponents of a new committee point to the fragmentation of jurisdiction over homeland security. Others point to the record of Congress as a strong indication that existing committees are capable of action. A third consideration in creating a homeland security committee is whether such a committee is sufficient for policymaking. Even if a new committee is created, other committees will still have jurisdiction over components of homeland security. The House has tended not to change its committee structure after executive branch reorganizations. This report contains a brief history of House committees. Related CRS reports: CRS Report RL32661, House Committees: A Framework for Considering Jurisdictional Realignment, by (name redacted); CRS Report RS21901, House Select Committee on Homeland Security: Possible Questions Raised If the Panel Were to Be Reconstituted as a Standing Committee, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted); CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920-2007, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL33061, Homeland Security and House Committees: Analysis of 109th Congress Jurisdiction Changes and Their Impact on the Referral of Legislation, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). This report will not be updated. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ˜—Ž—œȱ Homeland Security and House Committees in the 107th and 108th Congresses .............................. 2 107th Congress........................................................................................................................... 2 108th Congress........................................................................................................................... 3 108th Congress Hearings on Homeland Security and Committee Organization.............................. 6 Select Committee’s Recommendations for a Homeland Security Committee .............................. 20 What Is Homeland Security? The Homeland Security Act of 2002.............................................. 25 What Is Homeland Security? Commission and Think Tank Recommendations........................... 26 9/11 Commission Recommendations...................................................................................... 27 Bremer Commission................................................................................................................ 29 Gilmore Commission .............................................................................................................. 30 Hart-Rudman Commission...................................................................................................... 33 Brookings Institution............................................................................................................... 35 Center for Strategic and International Studies......................................................................... 37 A Brief History of House Committees and Department Creation ................................................. 38 Analysis of Considerations Relevant to the Creation of a Homeland Security Committee .......... 40 Concentration or Dispersal of Homeland Security Jurisdiction........................................ 42 Implications of Jurisdictional Gains and Losses............................................................... 46 Would a Homeland Security Committee Be Enough?...................................................... 52 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 54 Epilogue......................................................................................................................................... 56 Creation of the Homeland Security Committee in the 109th Congress ................................... 56 Committee Organization in the 110th Congress....................................................................... 61 ™™Ž—’¡Žœȱ Appendix A. Recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on Changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives with Respect to Homeland Security Issues............................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix B. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made by the 9/11 Commission................................................................................................................................ 70 Appendix C. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made by the Bremer Commission................................................................................................................................ 74 Appendix D. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made by the Gilmore Commission................................................................................................................................ 76 Appendix E. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made by the HartRudman Commission ................................................................................................................. 82 Appendix F. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made by The Brookings Institution ................................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix G. Recommendations on Congressional Organization Made By the Center for Strategic and International Studies............................................................................................. 94 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ˜—ŠŒœȱ Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 95 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ s directed by the House,1 the Select Committee on Homeland Security reported to the House Rules Committee September 30, 2004, its recommendations on “the operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security.” The select committee recommended the creation of a permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security, with specified jurisdiction. A A number of House committees currently have important roles in homeland security policymaking. The Appropriations Committee’s role related to discretionary spending is clear cut, and the committee reorganized its subcommittees at the start of the 108th Congress to create a Homeland Security Subcommittee aligned with the component parts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Legislative authority over policy areas and federal agencies included in DHS are principally within the jurisdiction of several standing House committees: Agriculture, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Government Reform, International Relations, Judiciary, Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Some of these committees also have jurisdiction over federal agencies and components of federal programs included in the department that have nonhomeland-security-related purposes. In the 108th Congress, the Select Committee on Homeland Security also had jurisdiction over legislation affecting DHS. In addition, some committees have key roles to play in overseeing homeland-security-related policy areas and federal agencies not incorporated in the department. These committees are Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, International Relations, and Judiciary Committees, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission2 became the latest of a number of commissions, think tanks, and other entities to weigh in on congressional oversight of the issue of homeland security. Some of these entities issued reports before the creation of DHS, some before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and some more recently. In addition, witnesses at House committee hearings in the 108th Congress held by subcommittees of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Rules provided additional ideas related to House oversight of homeland security. These entities’ and witnesses’ recommendations varied, but their variety offers the House a wealth of perspectives to draw on related to congressional-executive relations, building knowledge of homeland security policy issues among Members, and other aspects of congressional handling of the issue of homeland security. A specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and other entities was creation of a homeland security committee in each chamber. In addition, a number of witnesses at the House subcommittee hearings recommended a homeland security committee in the House, and made recommendations related to jurisdiction, membership, and other factors. It is a complex question, however, to take the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and other entities and of witnesses at the House subcommittee hearings and determine the potential 1 H.Res. 5, §4(b)(3). H.Res. 5 was agreed to in the House January 7, 2003. Among the purposes spelled out in the law creating the commission, the commission was to “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001,” the source of the commission’s popular name. The commission’s official name was the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ meaning and scope of homeland security in considering committee jurisdictions. One difficulty lies in trying to narrow the term to focus solely on the homeland—within the United States—as reflected in this statement from the 9/11 Commission report: America [in the post-Cold War world] stood out as an object for admiration, envy, and blame. This created a kind of cultural asymmetry. To us Afghanistan seemed very far away. To members of al Qaeda, America seemed very close. In a sense, they were more globalized than we were.3 Homeland security begins with counterterrorism and other initiatives overseas, and it includes intelligence activities at home and abroad that can help prevent terrorist attacks. In the 9/11 Commission recommendations, those of other entities, and those of some hearings witnesses, homeland security is a continuum of international and domestic initiatives and activities, all of which are essential to reducing the likelihood and potential impact of terrorist attacks against the United States. Another difficulty lies is the connectedness of homeland security to other policy areas. For transportation policy, agricultural policy, public health policy, trade policy, and so on, homeland security is one component of the policy area. Even if homeland security is now recognized as a critical component, some policymakers see the need for homeland security policy to mesh with the specific policy area and to be made within the context of the specific policy area. This report presents and discusses the recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission, and five other entities relevant to House committee organization and the issue of homeland security. (Related text from the select committee’s, the 9/11 Commission’s, and other entities’ reports appear in the appendices.) The report also synthesizes hearings testimony on House committee organization related to homeland security before the select committee and a subcommittee of the House Rules Committee. Finally, it analyzes the options and implications of this body of recommendations for House committee organization. The report is intended to support the House in evaluating potential changes to its oversight of homeland security as it makes and implements decisions on committee organization in the 109th Congress. ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱŠ—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ˜––’ŽŽœȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ ŗŖŝ‘ȱŠ—ȱŗŖޝ‘ȱ˜—›ŽœœŽœȱ ŗŖŝ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ Shortly after the convening of the 107th Congress, Speaker Hastert initiated a Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security as a unit of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.4 Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Speaker and Minority 3 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), p. 340. (Available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html, visited December 10, 2004.) 4 Rep. Porter Goss, remarks in the House, “Publication of the Rules of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 107th Congress,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, March 20, 2001, pp. H990-H994; and Niels C. Sorrells, (continued...) ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Leader Gephardt announced the elevation of the working group to a subcommittee.5 The subcommittee was to “coordinate the efforts of various [House] committees” with a claim to jurisdiction over various aspects of terrorism and to “provide a clearinghouse for legislative proposals.”6 Subsequently, the jurisdictional complexity of the subject matter of homeland security was demonstrated by the referral of the House measure to create DHS. That bill, H.R. 5005, was referred to 12 committees. A thirteenth committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, was created for the 107th Congress to receive these committees’ recommendations and to mark up and report a bill.7 Additional committees had narrower jurisdictional claims to H.R. 5005, but the bill was not referred to them.8 Congress also included the following provision related to House and Senate committee organization in the Homeland Security Act: It is the sense of Congress 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.9 ŗŖޝ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ The sense-of-the-Congress provision on review of committee structure included in the Homeland Security Act did not require either chamber to take action related to committee organization. The House, however, responded in adopting its rules for the 108th Congress by creating a Select Committee on Homeland Security for the duration of the 108th Congress.10 The House vested the select committee with the following jurisdiction: (...continued) “Chambliss Claims Intelligence Seat Surrendered by Bass,” CQ Daily Monitor, vol. 37, February 16, 2001, p. 9. 5 “Terrorism Working Group Now An Intelligence Subcommittee,” CQ Daily Monitor, vol. 37, September 21, 2001, p. 11. 6 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, archived home page (available online at http://web.archive.org/web/20011011082741/intelligence.house.gov/terrorism.htm, visited December 10, 2004). 7 H.Res. 449 was agreed to in the House June 19, 2002. 8 See CRS Report RL31449, House and Senate Committee Organization and Jurisdiction: Considerations Related to Proposed Department of Homeland Security, by (name redacted). 9 P.L. 107-296, §1503; 116 Stat. 2135, 2309. 10 In the Senate for the 108th Congress, jurisdiction over DHS resided in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which had marked up and reported legislation in the 107th Congress to create the department. Jurisdiction over various agencies and programs incorporated into the department was to be shared with other committees based on their jurisdictions. See Sen. Bill Frist, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, January 7, 2003, p. S26; and Mary Dalrymple, “Homeland Security Oversight Lands at Governmental Affairs,” CQ Daily Monitor, vol. 39, January 8, 2003, p. 5. Subsequently, on October 9, 2004, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 445, which renamed the Governmental Affairs Committee as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and made jurisdictional changes in this and other Senate committees, effective in the 109th Congress. See Andrew Taylor, “Senators Fight over Turf in Revamp of Homeland Security Oversight,” CQ Weekly, vol. 62, no. 40, October 16, 2004, p. 2460. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ (1) LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION—The select committee may develop recommendations and report to the House by bill or otherwise on such matters that relate to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) as may be referred to it by the Speaker. (2) OVERSIGHT FUNCTION—The select committee shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to homeland security.11 Speaker Hastert explained the purpose of the select committee in remarks to the House following his reelection as Speaker: Later on today, we will vote to create a Select Committee on Homeland Security. Members of this select committee will oversee the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to make certain that the executive branch is carrying out the will of the Congress. This select committee will be our eyes and our ears as this critical department is organized. The standing committees of the House will maintain their jurisdictions and will still have authorization and oversight responsibilities. This House needs to adapt to the largest reorganization of our executive branch in 50 years, and this select committee will help us make this transition.12 In its 108th Congress rules changes, the House also amended Rule XII, cl. 2(c)(1) to add the phrase shown here in italic: (c) In carrying out paragraphs (a) and (b) with respect to the referral of a matter, the Speaker— (1) shall designate a committee of primary jurisdiction (except where he determines that extraordinary circumstances justify review by more than one committee as though primary);13 The jurisdiction of the select committee provided the House with a focus for homeland security legislation and oversight, without immediately changing the jurisdictions of the standing committees that held jurisdiction over aspects of homeland security.14 The addition to the Speaker’s referral authority provided him with increased flexibility in referring homeland security legislation in this context, if needed, and with increased flexibility in referring other legislation where he deemed it an appropriate form of referral.15 11 H.Res. 5, §4(b)(1) and (2); H.Res. 5 was agreed to in the House January 7, 2003. Speaker Hastert, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, January 7, 2003, p. H5. 13 H.Res. 5, §2(i). 14 During debate on the rules changes proposed to the House, Rep. Oberstar, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, observed: “Mr. Speaker, the proposal to create a new Select Committee on Homeland Security interestingly does not make any changes in the legislative jurisdiction of the committees outlined in rule 10 of the rules of the House.” He ended his remarks by asking a question of House Rules Committee Chairman Dreier about referral in the 108th Congress of a bill covering subject matter that, in the 107th Congress, had been reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Chairman Dreier responded: “Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is very clear that the Speaker does have authority to refer legislation, and it is his intent to ensure that we maintain the jurisdiction of those committees.” Rep. James L. Oberstar and Rep. David Dreier, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, January 7, 2003, p. H15. 15 In explaining the package of rules changes proposed to the House, Rules Committee Chairman Dreier said about this change: “Section 2(1) permits the joint referral of measures without designation of primary jurisdiction. This change is meant only as a minor deviation from the normal requirement under the rules for the designation of one committee of primary jurisdiction and should be exercised only in extraordinary jurisdictionally deserving instances.” Rep. David Dreier, remarks in House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, January 7, 2003, p. H11. 12 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Śȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ In the 108th Congress, measures related to homeland security were referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security and in addition to other committees, with the select committee designated by the Speaker as the primary committee. Other measures related to homeland security were referred in addition to the select committee and other committees, with a committee other than the select committee designated by the Speaker as the primary committee. Some measures related to homeland security were not referred to the select committee.16 The House Appropriations Committee responded to the creation of DHS with a reorganization of its subcommittees. On January 29, 2003, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young announced the creation of the Homeland Security Subcommittee to correspond to the agencies and programs incorporated in the new Department of Homeland Security. The jurisdictions of the other subcommittees were realigned in order to retain 13 appropriations subcommittees, including the new subcommittee.17 In addition, five House authorizing committees renamed or reorganized subcommittees to create homeland security or terrorism subcommittees: • Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities, Committee on Armed Services; • Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform; • Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights, Committee on International Relations; • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary (created in 107th Congress);18 and • as mentioned above concerning the 107th Congress, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 16 See, for example, Homeland Security: Bill Referrals in the House, 108th Congress, by (name redacted), CRS congressional distribution memorandum, April 9, 2003. 17 House Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman Young Announces Homeland Security Reorganization,” news release, January 29, 2003. (Available online at http://appropriations.house.gov/ index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=210&Month=1&Year=2003, visited December 10, 2004.) Jurisdictions of the Appropriations Committee’s subcommittees are available on the committee’s website; see, for example, that of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, http://appropriations.house.gov/ index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutTheCommittee.Jurisdiction&SubcommitteeId=14, visited December 10, 2004. See also CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920-2007, by (name red acted). On March 4, 2003, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Byrd announced the committee’s reorganization, which mirrored the House committee’s changes. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Appropriations Committee Sets Subcommittee Assignments,” news release, March 4, 2003. (Available online at http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/record.cfm?id=190975, visited December 10, 2004.) A crosswalk of federal agencies and programs to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction is available at http://appropriations.senate.gov/jurisdiction/juristiction.pdf, visited December 10, 2004. In addition, the Senate approved S.Res. 445 on October 9, 2004, which in sec. 402 created an intelligence appropriations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, but allowed the committee to determine the changes to be made in other appropriations subcommittees in order to retain 13 subcommittees. See “Amendment No. 4015 to Amendment No. 3981” and “Amendment No. 4042 to Amendment No. 4015,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150, October 9, 2004, pp. S10908-S10909, S10917-S10918. 18 Pamela Barnett, “Subcommittee Name Change Reflects Homeland Security Issues,” CongressDaily AM, March 21, 2002, p. 12. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ śȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Finally, the Select Committee on Homeland Security was given another function in the House rules resolution—to assist the House in determining how it might organize itself in the future visà-vis the issue of homeland security: (3) RULES STUDY—The select committee is authorized and directed to conduct a thorough and complete study of the operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security. The select committee shall submit its recommendations regarding any changes in the rules of the House to the Committee on Rules not later than September 30, 2004.19 The next section synthesizes testimony received at hearings conducted by a subcommittee of the select committee on the operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including Rule X. The section following it explains the recommendation of the select committee to the Rules Committee, and lists developments in the 108th Congress after the release of the select committee’s recommendations. ŗŖޝ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ŽŠ›’—œȱ˜—ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱŠ—ȱ ˜––’ŽŽȱ›Š—’£Š’˜—ȱ When the Select Committee on Homeland Security organized, it created a Subcommittee on Rules under the chairmanship of Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart to carry out the study of House rules. The subcommittee conducted four hearings to support the select committee in fulfilling the House’s mandate.20 Witnesses at three of the Rules Subcommittee hearings in 2003 unanimously endorsed the existence of a House committee with legislative and oversight jurisdiction over DHS and the policy area of homeland security, although there were variations in specific recommendations in these witnesses’ testimony and responses to subcommittee members’ questions. These public witnesses—academic experts on Congress, former Speakers Foley and Gingrich, former Members Robert Walker and Lee Hamilton, and former Departments of Defense and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger—testified on the importance and uniqueness of homeland security in explaining their support for a separate legislative committee. The then-House parliamentarian also testified on May 19, 2003, providing a context for previous House committee reorganizations and attempted reorganizations. Witnesses at the Rules Subcommittee’s fourth hearing on March 24, 2004, and at a hearing held by another subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Technology and the House, on June 16-17, 2004,21 comprised almost exclusively chairs and ranking members of House committees. The 19 H.Res. 5, §4(b)(3). House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Rules, Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 19, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2004); Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2004); Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., September 9, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2004); and Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspective of Committee Leaders, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., March 24, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004). 21 A subcommittee of the House Rules Committee. House Rules Committee, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., June 16-17, 2004 (unprinted) (available online at http://www.house.gov/rules/108_hear_ruleX.htm, visited December 10, 2004). 20 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Ŝȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Members made a variety of suggestions regarding creation of a House committee on homeland security with legislative and oversight jurisdiction, and raised a number of issues to be considered by the House in deciding whether to create a committee and what kind of committee to create, including the impact on existing committees. The remainder of this section categorizes key considerations developed in the four Rules Subcommittee hearings, and synthesizes the testimony from witnesses at those hearings. Committee chairs and ranking members who testified at the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and the House presented similar considerations. Cross references to the hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House are provided in the footnotes in the balance of this section.22 Most quotations in this section are from oral testimony at the Rules Subcommittee hearings. In those instances where an excerpt from a prepared statement is used, that is noted. –™˜›Š—ŒŽȱ˜ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ In his oral and written statements, former Speaker Gingrich explained the depth and breadth of the terrorist threat and the potential loss of life that could result from some forms of terrorist attack.23 In his prepared statement, Speaker Gingrich introduced this explanation by stating: The risk of potentially losing millions of Americans and even having the very fabric of our society torn apart is why there is no issue or problem for which Congress must organize and allocate time and resources which is more important than creating an effective system of Homeland Security.24 Former Secretary Schlesinger also addressed the threat of terrorist attacks to American democracy and society.25 Witnesses such as Donald Wolfensberger26 testified on the duration and seriousness of the terrorist threat as reasons for a “concentrated effort by both the executive and Congress.”27 Aviation Subcommittee28 Chairman Mica explained the congressional environment: 22 For a range of information on committee organization (e.g., options for House committee organization and testimony by Members), see U.S. Senate, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials: Supplemental Information Provided to Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Senate print 103-55, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993). 23 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, pp. 9-16. 24 Ibid., p. 13. 25 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, pp. 21, 23. For additional perspectives on the importance of homeland security, see Select Committee on Homeland Security, Freedom Defended: Implementing America’s Strategy for Homeland Security, committee white paper, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: Select Committee on Homeland Security, October 5, 2004), available online at http://hsc.house.gov/files/ freedom_defended.pdf, visited December 10, 2004; and Rep. Jim Turner, Winning the War on Terror (Washington: Select Committee on Homeland Security/Democratic Office, April 27, 2004), available online at http://www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/issues_winning_war_terror.shtml, visited December 10, 2004). 26 Mr. Wolfensberger was formerly chief of staff of the House Committee on Rules. He serves as director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. 27 Ibid., pp. 32-33, 35. 28 A subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ The problem has never been a lack of focus or interest by the standing committees. Rather, the missing ingredient was a national consensus that terrorism should be a top priority. Congress as a whole reflected the national will and has been unable to make the tough choices terrorism required. And that, we know, is a part of our history, unfortunately, today. 9/11 changed that, and within days or a few weeks the standing committees had legislation ready.29 žž›ŽȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŽ™Š›–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ Witnesses testified on the importance of the new Department of Homeland Security developing organizationally so that it could successfully carry out its mission. This point was often coupled with a witness’s perspective on whether a single House homeland security committee was needed. For example, at the Rules Subcommittee’s July 10 hearing, former Secretary Schlesinger was asked to summarize the points he had made on why it was important for the House to have a permanent committee on homeland security: It is quite simple: It means that you will not be helping this new department to become more unified on the mission of homeland security, that the agencies that go into that department will continue more than is necessary to focus on their historic function, and it will tend to preserve the existing cultures of those agencies. And on the other hand, all of us have a responsibility for homeland security. Any failure on the part of the United States to bring these agencies into an effective whole [is] going to be noticed and exploited by those who wish the country harm.30 Secretary Schlesinger31 and congressional scholar Norman Ornstein testified that fragmentation of committee jurisdiction over homeland security harmed development of the department. Dr. Ornstein suggested a cause and effect relationship: The problem with fragmentation otherwise is, once again, just exactly what we had before we ended up with a Department of Homeland Security, which is all these other committees have a longtime interest in their own cultures built around the old functions of these agencies, and they are going to use their resources and their pressure to push those functions, which are appropriate functions. But if we don’t have a counterweight to make sure that the Homeland Security culture takes over, then they are going to have even greater problems inside the Department making things work.32 Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis testified on the importance of Congress’s work related to DHS: Because the success of the Department is vital to the continuing economic recovery and winning the war on terrorism, we all want it to succeed. Congress must provide the Department with the proper resources while at the same time maintaining aggressive oversight to ensure that this massive reorganization and commitment of resources succeeds.33 29 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 77. Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 18. 31 Ibid., p. 24. 32 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, p. 40. 33 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 64. 30 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Şȱ ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ˜—žŒȱ˜ȱŸŽ›œ’‘ȱ Public witnesses regularly mentioned the number of committees and subcommittees with legislative and oversight jurisdiction over DHS and the policy area of homeland security as a challenge to the development of a coherent homeland security policy. The chairs and ranking members drew on their experience in Congress to speak favorably about the work that had been done on homeland security by the existing committees. Former Secretary Schlesinger, drawing on his time as the secretary of the then-new Department of Energy as well as his time as the top official in other government agencies, pointed out the problems of duplication by House committees while acknowledging the proper role of oversight.34 Former Speaker Foley pointed out the inclination of committees and subcommittees to use the dispersed jurisdiction they have when focused oversight is what the new department needs.35 Former Representative Lee Hamilton addressed the blurring of priorities that occurs with many committees engaged in oversight.36 Former Representative Robert Walker discussed one committee’s priorities pushing aside another committee’s.37 A number of committee chairs and ranking members addressed the effectiveness of oversight under the current House committee system. Ranking Member Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee indicated that his experience with committees sharing oversight from their individual perspectives was positive and that agreements were able to be worked out when several committees had jurisdiction over a piece of legislation. He also expressed his concern over having a single committee conduct oversight over DHS, where the relationship might become comfortable rather than disinterested.38 Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner testified that agencies report to more than one committee and function effectively.39 Like Representative Dingell, Ranking Member Waxman of the Government Reform Committee expressed the view that oversight by multiple committees with different perspectives is effective.40 Ž™Š›–Ž—Ȃœȱ’–Žȱ Public witnesses also expressed their concern with the amount of time that DHS officials might spend in responding to hearings and requests from the numerous committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the department and the policy area of homeland security. Some committee chairs and ranking members addressed this concern in different ways. 34 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 13, 14, 24. Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, pp.7-8, 17. Mr. Foley’s Speakership included the 102nd and 103rd Congresses, during which the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress was created and worked. 36 Ibid., pp. 41, 43. Mr. Hamilton was co-chair of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in the 102nd and 103rd Congresses. 37 Ibid., p. 45. 38 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 49-50, 53-54. 39 Ibid., pp. 95, 110. 40 Ibid., p. 73. 35 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ şȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Former Secretary Schlesinger reported spending half of his time as secretary of energy on Capitol Hill, “dealing with one problem or another.” He indicated the number of committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over DHS would be a burden to a new department, and that staffs of those committees would add to the department’s workload by requesting individual briefings.41 Congressional scholar James Thurber commented on the lack of effectiveness for both Members and departmental officials in having multiple hearings scheduled at the same time.42 Former Representative Hamilton noted: “Congress can make a significant contribution to the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security simply by simplifying these overlapping committee structures.”43 Representative Dingell drew on his experience as a Member during the energy shortages of the 1970s to present another perspective: I went through the energy crisis, in the 1970s, and I have gone through a number of other problems of similar character, and I never found that there was anything other than benefit to be achieved by having a large number of committees viewing these questions from the standpoint of their own experience and expertise. And I would say that this happened very much during the time of the 1970s when the Energy Administrator or the chairmen of the regulatory bodies or later the head of the Department of Energy would come up to report to different committees about how they were conducting their business.44 ¡ŽŒž’ŸŽȬŽ’œ•Š’ŸŽȱŠ•Š—ŒŽȱ Several public witnesses discussed a standing homeland security committee in terms of Congress being able to perform its legislative and oversight role effectively following the reorganization of the executive branch to create DHS. For example, congressional scholar David King testified: [N]ow it is a fact that we have [DHS], and it is a fact that there is now a tremendous imbalance between the executive branch and the legislative branch. And the Congress must catch up. I am afraid that some of the people who will oppose the single standing committee of jurisdiction here are still in their minds back in the days before there was a Department of Homeland Security, trying to keep those clientalistic relationships that existed before. The fragmentation is tremendously debilitating. And Congress, as an institution must step up to the plate.... And far too many [M]embers of Congress, and certainly people in the executive branch, forget that Article I is about Congress, the most important branch as far as I am concerned, in the government. And it needs to be on equal footing with the Department of Homeland Security through a single permanent committee.45 41 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, pp. 9, 11, 12. Ibid., p. 45. 43 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, pp. 41, 43. 44 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 49. 45 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 45. 42 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŖȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton explained a different perspective on committee organization that was also expressed by several other committee chairs and ranking members: Health and Human Services, whose Cabinet Secretary has already testified before my committee on budget priorities and policy issues, also is subject to the Budget Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, obviously the Appropriations Committee, the Government Reform Committee. So they are going to multiple committees. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is one of the major agencies that we have jurisdiction over, they also have to report to the Transportation Committee, again the Appropriations Committee, [Agriculture] Committee, the Government Reform Committee, and the Science Committee. [The] Department of Energy, in addition to being responsible to the Energy and Commerce Committee[,] has issues for Armed Services, Government Reform, Science, [Appropriations], Resources. So most of the Cabinet agencies do report to multiple congressional committees, and I don’t see why Homeland Security should be any different, especially if we are doing our job.46 ˜––’ŽŽȱŸŽ›•Š™ȱŸœǯȱ˜––’ŽŽȱ¡™Ž›’œŽȱ In indicating his support for a new homeland security committee, former Speaker Foley expressed a view that was made by the public witnesses: I think there is the problem that otherwise [than having a new committee], with this diverse universe of subcommittees and committees, 13 committees, 88 subcommittees, a majority of the committees of the House, a majority of the subcommittees of the House, I am told almost rather clear the majority of the Members of the House have some connection with one of these subcommittees or committees that would otherwise have jurisdiction. So there is not only a need to bring some focus and scope to the oversight function, but there is a critical need to avoid the [distraction] of members of this new Department from having to respond day by day to dozens and dozens of different requests for testimony, and that is predictable.47 Former Representative Walker provided an example from his experience as a member and chair of the Science Committee, where jurisdiction over the energy policy area was shared with the Energy and Commerce Committee. He stated: “Those jurisdictional arguments often ended up with a nonaction in that area....”48 Former Secretary Schlesinger commented: “My problem is that there is so much duplication when a senior official comes to Capitol Hill and has to deal with five, six or eight committees. That does not help the House. That does not help the process.”49 In contrast, Agriculture Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Stenholm asked how such a large department as Homeland Security, with such a diverse portfolio in support of its mission, could be overseen by one committee. They stated that the Agriculture Committee was concerned 46 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 54. Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 7. See also the testimony of Select Committee on Homeland Security Committee Chairman Cox, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 16, 2004. 48 Ibid., p. 45. 49 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 13. Select Committee Chairman Cox noted during the hearings a coordination role for DHS testimony played by the select committee: Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, p. 48; and Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 30. 47 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŗȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ with “both intentional and unintentional threats” to U.S. agriculture, and provided an example of oversight in working with DHS to overturn a decision to eliminate agricultural inspectors and assign their duties to Customs and Border Protection officers, who would lack needed expertise to protect against agricultural threats.50 Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Mica and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Oberstar discussed the importance of the expertise resident in their committee in policymaking. For example, Representative Mica stated: It should be no surprise that a thorough understanding of the aviation system is required to produce effective aviation security legislation. The aviation system is based on a careful balance of highly complex regulations, procedures, infrastructure, engineering. And this system in fact has produced the world’s safest aviation industry. Preserving that balance is impossible without the expertise that comes from working on these issues for years.51 ˜–™Ž’—ȱ —Ž›Žœœȱ Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein52 and former Representative Hamilton supported their recommendations for a homeland security committee by pointing out the need for congressional leadership in helping a culture of homeland security to take root in the new department. Representative Hamilton’s prepared statement explained: DHS was created so that 22 agencies of the Federal Government would reorient their purpose and organization towards the mission of protecting the homeland. DHS is intended to embody a common mission and culture—indeed, the vital goal of implementation is to overcome bureaucratic resistance to forging that common culture.53 Former Secretary Schlesinger also discussed cultural change inside the department in stating his support for a homeland security committee: We talk about the cultural problems of bringing together agencies that have had a disparate past and integrating them into a new department. There are the cultural problems up here on the Hill of these different standing committees that have their traditions and their powers. And unless we effectively deal with that, the components of the department will not be able to focus on the newer problems of homeland security[;] those components will continue to respond to the older standing committees and their interests.54 In their testimony, committee chairs and ranking members identified their concerns with changes to the committee system that might sever components of existing jurisdiction. For example, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner discussed law enforcement and civil liberties as related policy concerns in his committee: 50 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 30, 32, 35, 36-37, 38, 41. See also the testimony of Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Stenholm, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 51 Ibid., pp. 76, 80-81, 82-83. See also the testimony of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 52 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, p. 40. 53 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 43. See also the testimony of Select Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Jim Turner, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 16, 2004. 54 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 17. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŘȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ There is more to law enforcement and training than just security. There is an important balancing to be done between security and civil liberties. It is dangerous to put that balancing task in a committee, the primary focus of which is security. I fear that civil liberties interest will be sacrificed.55 With regard to the committee’s jurisdiction over immigration, Chairman Sensenbrenner pointed out that immigration is within the jurisdiction of four departments, and stated: Although countering the terrorist threat is of significant importance in implementing our immigration laws, it is certainly not the only issue. Rather, immigration involves much more than homeland security[:] reuniting families, providing needed workers for American businesses, offering havens to refugees, and deporting those aliens who have broken our laws.56 Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas discussed the conflict between security and commerce: What has occurred in terms of the coordination of activities at the border I think was overdue, and it probably took a crisis such as this to require the rethinking and the integration of those border duties. I just have to tell you that the period in which we have negotiated with the homeland security structure has been one that I fully anticipated. That is, when your primary title is security, you make decisions differently than beings who are in the process of attempting to facilitate commercial intercourse and have been doing it for several hundred years. The question of whether or not a potential threat to, say, a port or an airport would require it to be shut down oftentimes is on the teeter-totter between public security and freedom. Those people who have security in their title hastily move to make sure that the place is secure.57 ‘Žȱ˜––’ŽŽœȂȱŽŒ˜›œȱ Several committee chairs and ranking members discussed the records of their committees in holding hearings and reporting legislation related to homeland security. For example, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton submitted a list of “homeland security accomplishments” with his prepared statement. In oral testimony, he gave examples of the committee’s work, for example: The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction for security at commercial nuclear power plants. Everybody, regardless of where your committee is, agrees that securing these facilities from a terrorist attack or any kind of attack is a very good idea. The conference report on H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy bill, contains very strong new requirements in that respect. These requirements were developed in our committee on a bipartisan basis.58 55 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 94, 108. Ibid., p. 94, 103. See also the testimony of Chairman Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 57 Ibid., p. 114. See also the testimony of Chairman Thomas, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 16, 2004, and the testimony of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 58 Ibid., p. 45, 46-47. 56 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗřȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Representative Mica, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, provided the Rules Subcommittee with a statement by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Young, which listed that committee’s counterterrorism and homeland security legislation beginning in 1989. Representative Mica testified: Back in 1990, we mandated background checks for aviation personnel, began deploying bomb detection devices at our [airports]; we built FEMA, which helped New York and Washington respond to 9/11 and much of the rest of the country. We created TSA, fortified cockpit doors, armed pilots, put marshals back in the sky, developed a whole host of comprehensive approaches not only to aviation, but also to transportation security. We established the aviation industry, passed the Maritime Security Act, and created port security grants.59 Government Reform Committee Chairman Davis stated his committee “maintain[ed] an aggressive posture when it comes to overseeing DHS.” He testified: For example, the committee held oversight hearings on topics related to FEMA, TSA, first responders, critical infrastructure, visa policy, preparedness standards, DHS financial accountability, border management, port security and product litigation management, to name just a few. We held markups on Project BioShield, the Presidential Vacancy Act and the DHS Financial Accountability Act.60 In his opening remarks at the same hearing, Rules Subcommittee member Representative Curt Weldon listed three examples of homeland security legislation that seemed to be stalled at the committee stage after being referred to several committees.61 Later in the hearing, select committee Chairman Cox, sitting as a member of the subcommittee, observed that there was little overlap in the work of the select committee and that of Energy and Commerce Committee, on which he also served.62 ‘Šȱ œȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ǵȱ Several witnesses made statements that suggested definitions of homeland security, speaking either specifically of DHS or broadly of the policy area. Former Secretary Schlesinger responded as follows to a question about a mission for the department that might be selected from a continuum of possibilities: Well, I think the department has, in the President’s message [on a national strategy], indicated that what we must do is to anticipate through intelligence possible attacks on the United States, to respond to such attacks as quickly as we can and to mitigate the consequences of those attacks. And that is why we have responded. It is at the one pole [of the continuum] that you mentioned at the outset, which was, you know, to inform local governments. 59 Ibid., p. 77, 79. Ibid., p. 64-65. 61 Ibid., p. 8. 62 Ibid., p. 62. 60 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŚȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Those local governments will need help, and only the United States, the Federal Government, can provide that help. If we have nuclear detonation in some place in the United States, the local authorities will be overwhelmed, and we must have an entity that has thought through that problem and will bring to bear the resources of the Federal Government to help those local governments. It is not just warning.63 In a later hearing, former Speaker Gingrich responded to a question about the role of the department: It is, first, intelligence and prevention. I think you put your finger on the key part: Can we block something bad from happening defensively inside our own country? Second, ensuring that the capability exists for response, recovery, and rehabilitation; setting the standards and monitoring to make sure that those capabilities exist. But it is, third, whenever possible, contracting out and coordinating those capabilities. For example, the Northern Command in the Department of Defense is a significant piece of this. The National Guard component of that is a significant piece. Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and the Public Health Service have a significant piece of this. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in terms of its food inspection.... And then, finally, the cities and States who are going to have an ongoing everyday first responder....64 Later in the same hearing, Speaker Gingrich responded to a question on committee organization: ...I think the jurisdiction issue is actually fairly easy in principle. The principle ought to be that this is a mission-driven jurisdiction; that is, when there are questions of activities that are uniquely homeland security, protection, response, recovery, rehabilitation, this committee ought to have either sole or lead jurisdiction. But it ought to have the right to claim concurrent jurisdiction over problems as they impinge on homeland security. And the reason I say that is, this year the problem may be an issue of how do you change spectrum, the next year the issue may be one dealing with agriculture. We can’t tell in advance where the intelligence trail and where the threat is going to take us.65 Sitting as an ex officio member of the Rules Subcommittee, Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Cox expressed his concern over keeping DHS focused on its mission, which he summarized as follows: “First, to protect; second, to prevent; and third, to respond. Those three must, it seems to me, define the Department and thus the jurisdiction of any committee that oversees it to the exclusion of all else.”66 ™’˜—œȱžŽœŽȱ Witnesses suggested a number of options for a new committee on homeland security. Some witnesses opposed some possible jurisdictional arrangements for such a committee. Homeland Security Committee Built Incrementally. Congressional scholars Ornstein and Thomas Mann testified jointly. They suggested moving “gradually,” or “incrementally,” and 63 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 19. Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 21. 65 Ibid., p. 29. 66 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 23. 64 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗśȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ “strategically” in creating a permanent standing committee with “several areas of jurisdiction.” They warned that a new committee “with substantial jurisdiction that takes away from other committees at once” would “fail.” In addition, there would need to be coordination and shared jurisdiction since there were non-homeland security functions included in DHS and functions that were closely related to homeland security outside of the department. They suggested “creative use of the referral process,” including in the designation of “lead actors” for important legislation, and the Speaker’s involvement in creating a “process of prioritizing” requests for the testimony of executive officials.67 Dr. Ornstein added that Members would want to retain assignments in addition to service on a new committee “and we will end up with bigger institutional problems.”68 Former Secretary Schlesinger recommended consolidating committee jurisdiction over DHS as helpful to the new department, commenting favorably on creating a standing committee.69 He also called it “useful” to give the committee both oversight and legislative authority.70 No Homeland Security Committee. In response to a question regarding possible “benefits” to not having a homeland security committee, Dr. Mann responded: I think there are arguments. One of them is that the House since 1974 has figured out a way to live with and cope with jurisdictional sprawl, that the leadership working through the Parliamentarian’s office has developed strategies of joint and sequential referral, of special rules, of scheduling, in ways that allow them, the leadership, to pull the expertise from various committees and subcommittees together in coherent pieces of legislation. In doing so, you don’t disrupt existing patterns of expertise, of historical memory, of staffing, that you retain some capacity for alternative perspectives on similar problems, that you set up some competition between teams of members who might see things differently. All those are advantages in letting the current system go forward as it is.71 Transfer Jurisdiction over DHS to Homeland Security Committee. Dr. Thurber was specific in his recommendation to create a permanent standing committee on homeland security in House Rule X, with “jurisdiction directly related to the agencies of DHS and generally to the mission of reducing the threat [to] homeland security.” He noted that there are agencies outside of DHS that deal with homeland security, that the new committee needed an “oversight and coordination relationship” with those activities, and that coordination would be needed with other committees in order to develop a “comprehensive policy making approach to homeland security.” Dr. Thurber favored “shared [committee] jurisdiction with primary and secondary responsibilities for the functions of the entities in DHS” that are not related to homeland security. He recommended the jurisdictions of other committees over DHS agencies be transferred to the new committee. Finally, Dr. Thurber recommended that the membership of the new committee include members 67 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, pp. 29, 33, 36-37. In a later hearing, former Speaker Foley began his testimony by endorsing Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Ornstein’s testimony, Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 7. 68 Ibid., p. 42. 69 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 13. 70 Ibid., p. 24. 71 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, p. 42. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŜȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ from committees losing jurisdiction in order to bring to the new committee “knowledge, expertise, institutional history,” and that there be “transition rules” to facilitate this service.72 Mr. Wolfensberger also favored creation of a permanent standing committee on homeland security similar to that described by Dr. Thurber. Mr. Wolfensberger added that the committee should be a “major committee for assignment purposes, if not an exclusive committee.” He stated that the new committee should work closely with the leadership in “coordinating its oversight activities with that of other committees,” with oversight agendas “superintended by the bipartisan leadership.”73 Finally, he suggested coupling the creation of a new homeland security committee with an increase in committee chairs’ term limits to four consecutive terms from three consecutive terms. The increase would serve as an incentive to support change as well as allow more time for a chair to build expertise.74 Both former Representative Walker and former Representative Hamilton also favored creation of a permanent standing committee on homeland security. Mr. Walker addressed the need to get rid of “silos” in order to make policy decisions on homeland security issues in support of a “common goal.” Mr. Hamilton spoke of the value of informed congressional oversight based on “acquired expertise.”75 A number of committee leaders expressed reservations about or opposition to the transfer of jurisdiction from committees with long expertise and with perspectives in addition to that of counter-terrorism security. Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte urged the Rules Subcommittee to be “cautious in considering [jurisdictional] changes,” citing his committee’s expertise in agriculture compared to the breadth of expertise that a single committee would need to cumulate to oversee DHS’s wide and varied scope of responsibilities.76 Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton pointed out the difficulty of distinguishing the relationship of his committee’s jurisdiction to homeland security from the homeland security jurisdiction of a new committee, explaining that the “consequences” of terrorist attacks or of other actions or events may be the same.77 Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Mica and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Oberstar explained the expertise that existed in standing committees and that was needed to legislate on homeland security within complex systems such as aviation or emergency management.78 Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner, as mentioned above, explained the balance within law enforcement and immigration between security and civil liberties in the case of law enforcement and between security and the several purposes of immigration in the case of legal immigration. He stated the Judiciary Committee should retain its jurisdiction, should the House create a homeland security committee, since the Judiciary Committee had “experience and expertise” and had demonstrated a “unified, balanced approach” to the work within its 72 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, pp. 26-28, 29-30. Ibid., pp. 33, 35-36. 74 Ibid., p. 42. 75 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, pp. 37, 39, 40-41, 42-44. 76 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, p. 32. 77 Ibid., p. 45. 78 Ibid., pp. 77, 81, 82-83. See also the statement of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, pp. 77-79. 73 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŝȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ jurisdiction.79 Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas explained that his committee’s jurisdiction over customs functions is essential to U.S. international trade: “The point at which those [export and import] activities occur have to be allowed to go forward in a very smooth and efficient manner, with the full understanding of the concerns of security today different than previously....”80 Split Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Wolfensberger suggested creating the new committee by splitting the existing Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, assigning about a third of its members to the new committee and adding members from the other committees that currently have jurisdiction over homeland security. The other members of the existing Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would be assigned to a new transportation committee. Mr. Wolfensberger made an analogy to the reorganization of the Appropriations Committees.81 Assign Homeland Security to the Government Reform Committee. Stating that a new homeland security committee would cause “new jurisdictional overlaps and conflicts,” Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Waxman proposed that the Government Reform Committee would “oversee the administration of the Department’s headquarters and departmentwide policies as well as White House efforts to coordinate homeland security policy” and “current committees would continue to oversee their legacy agencies” that had been transferred to DHS. They made an analogy to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as it exercised jurisdiction over DHS in the 108th Congress.82 Chairman Davis noted that the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over “agency reorganization, human capital, IT security, Federal-State relations, procurement, and the management and efficiency of government organizations.” He also noted that the committee had experience in working on legislation with other committees, that the proposal “strengthens the parallel structures of House-Senate relations,” and that the arrangement ensured coordination among committees “when no other committee could naturally receive the primary referral” of “cross-agency proposals.”83 In a statement submitted for the hearing record, Science Committee Chairman Boehlert suggested: ...giving primary legislative jurisdiction over each directorate of DHS to the appropriate standing Committee and having the Committee on Government Reform exercise its traditional jurisdiction across the agency.84 Select Committee. Congressional scholar David King recommended a permanent select committee on homeland security, with primary jurisdiction over homeland security generally and over DHS, and with jurisdiction over DHS agencies transferred from existing committees. In a 79 Ibid., pp. 92-95, 103-104, 108.. Ibid., p. 117. 81 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, p. 42. 82 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 65, 67, 68. See also the testimony of Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Waxman, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 16, 2004. 83 Ibid., pp. 65-66, 67. 84 Ibid., p. 119. 80 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŞȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ departure from this recommendation of consolidation, he suggested transferring jurisdiction over the Coast Guard to the Armed Services Committee. Dr. King recommended that the Speaker direct the parliamentarian to draft a memorandum of understanding to govern “multiple referrals for homeland security issues,” and that, on referrals, the Speaker give “primary jurisdiction over homeland security” to the new committee and “secondary time-limited referrals” to other committees. Dr. King recommended that the new committee’s members be drawn from committees losing jurisdiction, with the distribution of committee seats specified; he added that seniority on the new committee should be “based on time served on the committees contributing their members.” Dr. King also recommended limiting the committee’s size.85 Intelligence Committee Chairman Goss pointed out the advantages of a permanent select committee on homeland security, specifically identifying the advantages of leadership selection of committee members.86 Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas made an analogy to the former Select Committee on Aging as a potential model, with a distinct focus, for an oversight committee on homeland security. He said such a homeland security committee would have the function “of coordination, of concern, of observation, of assistance.” He stated that a homeland security committee should not be vested with jurisdiction in a manner that would “interfere with a [committee] structure that has been successful through a number of other threats to our security....”87 Ad Hoc Committees. Several witnesses commented on the past use of ad hoc committees, including creation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 107th Congress to report legislation establishing DHS.88 Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Stenholm urged the Rules Subcommittee to “give more life” to the Speaker’s authority under House Rule XII to refer matters to ad hoc committees. He also suggested that the House work toward achievement of its rule of limiting each Member to two committee assignments.89 Coordination. A number of public witnesses and committee leaders addressed the need or the perceived need for coordination of legislation affecting DHS or of requests for hearings testimony by DHS officials. As mentioned above, former Secretary Schlesinger indicated the number of committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over DHS would be a burden to the new department.90 Congressional scholar James Thurber commented on the lack of effectiveness for both Members and departmental officials in having multiple hearings scheduled at the same time.91 Former Representative Hamilton noted the contribution Congress could make to DHS’s implementation by simplifying its committee structures.92 85 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, pp. 38-39, 40-41, 43. 86 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 19, 21. See also the testimony of Chairman Goss, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 87 Ibid., pp. 115, 116. 88 See, for example, the prepared statement of Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Lessons from the Past, May 19, 2003, pp. 35-36. 89 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 35-36. 90 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Committees and the Executive Branch, July 10, 2003, pp. 9, 11, 12. 91 Ibid., p. 45. 92 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, p. 41. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗşȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton observed that a response to the concern over numerous committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over DHS would be coordination rather than the creation of a new committee. He suggested a liaison staff member in the Speaker’s office as an option. He also suggested the possibility of extending the life of the Select Committee on Homeland Security for one more Congress.93 Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Dingell stated that the existing committees of jurisdiction could coordinate, as they have in the past, with the “assistance” of the House leadership. He also noted that House rules could be amended to assign specified homeland-security functions to the standing committees.94 Intelligence Ranking Member Harman explained the value of a permanent standing committee on homeland security as a “mechanism for coordinated review of terrorism” and as a means for effective oversight of DHS.95 Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Mica noted that a homeland security committee could have a role in coordination over homeland-security activities of executive entities that were included in DHS and those outside DHS and in marshaling expertise in the House from among the committees of jurisdiction.96 Budget Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Speaker Gingrich recommended the creation of a homeland security subcommittee of the Budget Committee to ensure “adequate resources for Homeland Security before considering any other budgetary matters.” He endorsed the creation of a permanent standing committee on homeland security, “with the right to claim concurrent jurisdiction over problems as they impinge on homeland security.” Speaker Gingrich also recommended adoption of a resolution at the beginning of each Congress that “instructs the executive branch on who has to report where,” and monitoring interactions by the House with DHS to prevent “diversions.”97 Homeland Security Subcommittees. As mentioned earlier, six standing committees reorganized to create subcommittees with jurisdiction over homeland security. In his testimony, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton suggested that House rules might be changed to allow standing committees to create an additional subcommittee, to which a committee could assign jurisdiction over homeland security.98 Ž•ŽŒȱ˜––’ŽŽȂœȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ˜›ȱŠȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ˜––’ŽŽȱ On September 30, 2004, the Select Committee on Homeland Security transmitted its recommendations to the Rules Committee.99 It recommended that a standing and therefore 93 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 45-46, 53. Ibid., p. 52, 60. 95 Ibid., pp. 16, 17-18. 96 Ibid., p. 91. 97 Hearing on Perspectives on House Reform: Former House Leaders, September 9, 2003, pp. 12, 16, 29. 98 Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders, March 24, 2004, pp. 56, 63. See also the testimony of Chairman Barton, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Rule X, The Organization of Committees, June 17, 2004. 99 A majority of members of the select committee signed a letter from Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Jim Turner (continued...) 94 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŖȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ permanent Committee on Homeland Security be established, with the addition of a new clause 12 to House Rule X.100 Key aspects of the select committee’s recommendations included: • a standing committee is to be created, composed of not more than 29 members and not more than 16 from one party; • the Speaker and minority leader to serve ex officio, without voting privileges; • jurisdiction is to be granted over “homeland security generally” and over DHS, except, generally, for non-homeland security matters within the authority of the department; • “exclusive authorizing and primary oversight jurisdiction” is to be granted with respect to the department’s authorities related to the “prevention of, preparation for, and response to acts of terrorism within the United States”; • authorizations for the department to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of terrorism must precede appropriations; and • referrals of legislation and other matters to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress would not be considered precedent for referrals to the new committee.101 In addition to jurisdiction over homeland security generally and the department (numbered (1) and (2) in the proposed standing committee’s jurisdiction), the select committee’s recommendations enumerated eight other specific components of the proposed committee’s jurisdiction: (3) The integration, analysis, and sharing of homeland security information related to the risk of terrorism within the United States. (4) The dissemination of terrorism threat warnings, advisories, and other homeland securityrelated communications to State and local governments, the private sector, and the public. (5) Department of Homeland Security responsibility for research and development in support of homeland security, including technological applications of such research. (6) Department of Homeland Security responsibility for security of United States borders and ports of entry, including the Department’s responsibilities related to visas and other forms of permission to enter the United States. (7) Enforcement of Federal immigration laws (except for responsibilities of the Department of Justice). (...continued) transmitting the recommendations to the Rules Committee; the letter is available online at http://hsc.house.gov/files/ mini_report_sigs.pdf, visited December 10, 2004. There was not a committee meeting to consider the recommendations. 100 House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on Changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives with Respect to Homeland Security Issues, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 2004. The select committee also issued Supplementary Materials and Summary of Activities of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. (Available online at http://hsc.house.gov/files/mini_report_sigs.pdf, visited December 10, 2004.) See also Appendix A for the text of select committee’s recommendations. 101 Ibid., pp. 7-8. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řŗȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ (8) Security of United States air, land, and maritime transportation systems. (9) Non-revenue aspects of customs enforcement. (10) Department of Homeland Security responsibility for Federal, state, and local level preparation to respond to acts of terrorism.102 These statements provided specificity to discussion in the House of what might constitute homeland security jurisdiction. The select committee observed in its report: “The Homeland Security Act of 2002 offers a congressionally-created road map to jurisdictional reform that focuses on the structure, organization, capabilities, and mission of the Department itself.”103 In addition, the recommendations included proposed changes to the Rule X jurisdictional statements of other committees to reduce or eliminate overlap of homeland security jurisdiction with the new committee. The committees that would be affected by the proposed changes were: 102 103 • Committee on Energy and Commerce, where there was an addition at the end of its jurisdictional statement: “In the case of each of the foregoing, the committee’s jurisdiction shall not include responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security.” • Committee on Financial Services, where there was an addition at the end of its jurisdictional statement: “In the case of each of the foregoing, the committee’s jurisdiction shall not include responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security.” • Committee on International Relations, where there was an addition at the end of its jurisdictional statement: “In the case of each of the foregoing, the committee’s jurisdiction shall not include responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security.” • Committee on the Judiciary, where its jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization was amended to contain an exception—“(except for Department of Homeland Security responsibility for security of United States borders and ports of entry, including the Department’s responsibilities for visas and other forms of permission to enter the United States, and immigration enforcement)”—and its jurisdiction over subversive activities was also amended to contain an exception—“(except for responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security).” • Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where its jurisdiction was amended at five points— • the non-homeland security-related missions of the Coast Guard remained within the jurisdiction of the committee, • federal management of natural disasters remained within the committee’s jurisdiction, although federal management of “emergencies” was not listed, Ibid., pp. 7-8. Ibid., p. 2. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŘȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ • • jurisdiction over related transportation regulatory agencies was amended to contain an exception—“(except for responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security),” • jurisdiction over various forms of transportation and related matters was amended to contain an exception—“in each case exclusive of the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security,” • jurisdiction over civil aviation was removed from the list of various forms of transportation, listed separately in a new subparagraph, and stated as follows—“Civil aviation, including safety and commercial impact of security measures.” Committee on Ways and Means, where the phrase “Revenue from” was added at the beginning of the jurisdictional statement “Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.” Finally, the membership of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was proposed to include at least one member of the new Committee on Homeland Security; the membership of the Intelligence Committee already includes members of other committees. In a news release announcing the issuance of the select committee’s recommendations, Chairman Cox stated: We must give the new committee meaningful jurisdiction to legislate and to conduct congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and related homeland security programs and activities. I think all of us would agree that it would be better to have no committee than a committee with jurisdictionally clipped wings, condemned never to take flight. In the same news release, the ranking member of the select committee’s Rules Subcommittee, Representative Slaughter, stated: Congress ordered the largest reorganization of government when it created the Department of Homeland Security. Now, Congress must act decisively and create a permanent standing committee to ensure that DHS becomes the agency that Congress envisioned. Anything less than that, and Congress will not be fulfilling its duty to the American people.104 These comments echoed the explanation the select committee gave for its recommendation: The current diffused and unfocused congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, and homeland security in general, not only imposes extraordinary burdens on the Department, but makes it far more difficult for the Congress to guide the Department’s activities in a consistent and focused way that promotes integration and eliminates programmatic redundancies, and advances implementation of a coherent national homeland security strategy.105 104 House Select Committee on Homeland Security, “House Homeland Security Committee Recommends Reform of DHS Oversight,” news release, September 30, 2004. (Available online at http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=257, visited December 1, 2004.) 105 Recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on Changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives with Respect to Homeland Security Issues, pp. 1-2. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řřȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ ž‹œŽšžŽ—ȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—œȱ Following the release of the select committee’s recommendations, Chairman Linder of the Rules Committee’s Subcommittee on Technology and the House issued a “Dear Colleague” letter soliciting Members’ “opinions on matters relating to homeland security and Rule X, including the formal recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.”106 In addition, following past practice near the end of a Congress, the Rules Committee solicited Members’ proposals for House rules changes for the 109th Congress.107 The House also passed H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, containing a sense of the House provision: It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Rules should act upon the recommendations provided by the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and other committees of existing jurisdiction, regarding the jurisdiction over proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials and other matters relating to homeland security prior to or at the start of the 109th Congress.108 And, on November 16, 2004, following his renomination to the Speakership by the House Republican Conference, Speaker Hastert addressed the conference and said this about a House homeland security committee: In the last Congress, we created a Select Committee on Homeland Security to help us coordinate our legislative response to the new Department of Homeland Security. This year, it is my intention that we make that Committee permanent.109 ˜—Œ•žœ’˜—ȱ To this point, this report has recounted and synthesized actions in the 107th and 108th Congresses related to committee organization and the issue of homeland security. Key actions on committee organization in the 107th Congress were the creation of the Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security within the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and its elevation to a subcommittee, and the creation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security to mark up and report the bill establishing the Department of Homeland Security. Key actions on committee organization in the 108th Congress were the creation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, with jurisdiction over the Homeland Security Act and 106 Rep. Linder, Chair, Subcommittee on Technology and the House, Committee on Rules, Dear Colleague letter, October 4, 2004. See, for example, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner, letter to Chairman Linder, October 18, 2004; and “Hill Briefs: Homeland Security,” CongressDaily PM, October 22, 2004. 107 Rules Committee, “Proposed Rules Changes for the 109th Congress,” special announcement, October 18, 2004 (available online at http://www.house.gov/rules/108announce_109rulechngs.htm, visited December 10, 2004). 108 Sec. 5027(b) of H.R. 10, passed by the House October 8, 2004. Subsequently, Congress passed and the President on December 17, 2004, signed into law S. 2845, P.L. 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. In addition, on October 7, 2004, Rep. Maloney introduced H.Res. 837, with five cosponsors, to create a standing Committee on Homeland Security, among other purposes; the measure was referred to the Committee on Rules. 109 Speaker Hastert, “Speaker Hastert Wins Renomination to Fourth Consecutive Term,” news release, November 16, 2004. (Available online at http://speaker.house.gov/library/misc/041116term.shtml, visited December 10, 2004). See also Select Committee on Homeland Security, “Speaker Hastert Endorses Homeland Security Committee,” news release, November 16, 2004. (Available online at http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=270, visited December 10, 2004). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŚȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ responsibility for a study of House rules, including Rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security; hearings on committee organization held by a subcommittee of the select committee and, separately, by a subcommittee of the Rules Committee; recommendations from the select committee for a standing committee of the House on homeland security; and support voiced by the Speaker for a permanent homeland security committee in the 109th Congress. The next two sections of this report distill the provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the recommendations of four national commissions and two think tanks relevant to House committee organization and the issue of homeland security. The section on the Homeland Security Act focuses on the definitions of homeland security contained in the act. The section on commission and think tank recommendations captures the specific recommendations related to committee organization and the context in which the recommendations were made. These two sections are followed by a brief history of committee reorganization related to departmental creation, bringing together this record in one place. ‘Šȱ œȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ǵȱ‘Žȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱ ŽŒž›’¢ȱŒȱ˜ȱŘŖŖŘȱ As noted above, the Select Committee on Homeland Security stated in the report on its recommendations to the House: “The Homeland Security Act of 2002 offers a congressionallycreated road map to jurisdictional reform that focuses on the structure, organization, capabilities, and mission of the Department itself.” Some of these directions are reflected in definitions of homeland security that appear in the Homeland Security Act as well as in the President’s national strategy, which served as a basis for the Homeland Security Act. In the National Strategy for Homeland Security that President Bush issued in June 2002, the strategy contained the following: Definition: Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.110 The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as enacted, contained three definitions of homeland security for three different purposes under the law. First, in the mission of DHS, Congress restated the definition from the President’s national strategy: In general.—The primary mission of the Department is to—(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; (B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; (C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States....111 110 Office of Homeland Security, Executive Office of the President, National Strategy for Homeland Security, June 2002. (Available online at, http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/index.html, visited September 21, 2004.) For a discussion of the evolution of the term homeland security, its relationship to the earlier term civil defense, and its contrast with the terms national security and internal security, see (name redacted), “Homeland Security and Information,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 19, 2002, pp. 213-223. 111 P.L. 107-296, §101; 116 Stat. 2135, 2142. In marking up H.R. 5005, the 107th Congress bill to create DHS, the (continued...) ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řśȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Second, in establishing the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, Congress defined homeland security research to explain the purpose of such research: Homeland security research.—The term “homeland security research” means research relevant to the detection of, prevention of, protection against, response to, attribution of, and recovery from homeland security threats, particularly acts of terrorism.112 Third, in directing the President to include in his annual budget submission an analysis of homeland security spending, Congress provided the following definition for determining what activities and accounts to include in the analysis: In this paragraph, consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s June 2002 ‘Annual Report to Congress on Combatting Terrorism’, the term ‘homeland security’ refers to those activities that detect, deter, protect against, and respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United States and its territories.113 These definitions are explicit in stating that homeland refers to “within the United States.” A substantial part of homeland security—American military, intelligence, and diplomatic activities—relate to actions that occur outside of the United States. ‘Šȱ œȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ǵȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱ ‘’—”ȱŠ—”ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ As noted at the beginning of this report, the 9/11 commission and other commissions and think tanks recommended a reorganization of congressional committees, specifically recommending the creation of a homeland security committee in each chamber. These recommendations were not specific about key aspects of such committees, such as jurisdiction. However, each entity set out one or more principles that might guide House and Senate reorganization of its committees vis-àvis the policy area of homeland security. The commissions and think tanks made their recommendations on committee reorganization in the context of a larger set of recommendations for combating terrorism and securing the homeland. This context is helpful in understanding how these entities defined homeland security and how they arrived at a recommendation for committee reorganization. This section examines the reports of four commissions and two think tanks. It analyzes the context for each entity’s recommendations for committee reorganization and provides the specific (...continued) House Government Reform Committee approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5005 that contained the following definition of homeland security: “The term ‘homeland security’ means the deterrence, detection, preemption, prevention, and defense against terrorism targeted at the territory, sovereignty, population, or infrastructure of the United States, including the management of the programs and policies necessary to respond to and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.” Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5005 offered by Chairman Burton, and approved by the House Committee on Government Reform June 12, 2002. 112 P.L. 107-296, §307; 116 Stat. 2135, 2169. 113 P.L. 107-296, §889; 116 Stat. 2135, 2251. The OMB report is available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ legislative/combating_terrorism06-2002.pdf, visited December 10, 2004. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŜȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ recommendation. Citations to additional studies related to committee reorganization are provided in the footnotes of this section.114 şȦŗŗȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean (R) chaired the 9/11 Commission; former Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) served as vice chair. The commission’s official name was the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 9/11 Commission reported to the President and Congress on July 22, 2004.115 ˜—Ž¡ȱ In explaining the potential meaning and scope of homeland security, the 9/11 Commission summarized its proposed strategy as follows: The present transnational danger is Islamist terrorism. What is needed is a broad politicalmilitary strategy that rests on a firm tripod of policies to • attack terrorists and their organizations; • prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism; and 114 Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and other commissions and think tanks related to changes in Congress’s oversight of intelligence are not discussed in this report, nor are recommendations related to policy options requiring congressional action. However, the excerpts from the reports provided in the appendices contain all analyses and recommendations related to congressional organization. In addition, the commission and think tank reports summarized in this CRS report are representative of a large number of studies by various private, governmental, and congressional entities. For example, see also recommendations by the Heritage Foundation on congressional committee reorganization: Michael Scardaville, “The New Congress Must Reform Its Committee Structure to Meet Homeland Security Needs,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, November 12, 2002 (available online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/ HomelandDefense/bg1612.cfm, visited December 10, 2004); James Jay Carafano and Paul Rosenzweig, “What the 9/11 Commission’s Report Should Contain: Four Recommendations for Making America Safer,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, July 13, 2004 (available online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1778.cfm, visited December 10, 2004); James Jay Carafano, “Lack of Congressional Reform Leaves America Less Safe,” Heritage Foundation Web Memo #579, September 30, 2004 (available online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/ HomelandDefense/wm579.cfm, visited December 10, 2004); and James Jay Carafano, “Homework: Congress Needs To Return with a Better Plan to Reform Homeland Security Oversight” Heritage Foundation, Web Memo #587, October 14, 2004 (available online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/ wm587.cfm?renderforprint=1, visited December 10, 2004). For additional recommendations on policies and organization of the federal government, see also, for example, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, The Defense Science Board 1997 Summer Study Task Force on DOD Responses to Transnational Threats, vol. I (Washington, October 1997) (available online at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/trans.pdf, visited December 10, 2004); and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, report, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-792 (Washington: GPO, December 2002) (available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html, visited December 10, 2004). 115 Among the purposes spelled out in the law creating the commission, the commission was to “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001,” the source of the commission’s popular name. See Appendix B for the citation in law to the commission’s creation and for the full text of its analysis and recommendations related to congressional organization. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řŝȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ • protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks.116 The commission made numerous recommendations in the final two chapters of its report. It stated the purpose of these two chapters as follows: The United States should consider what to do—the shape and objectives of a strategy. Americans should also consider how to do it—organizing their government in a different way.117 (Emphasis in original.) The commission’s recommendations related to congressional organization were made in the context of its recommendations for governmentwide organization. In introducing the chapter on “how to do it,” the commission summarized its recommendations for government organization: The United States has the resources and the people. The government should combine them more effectively, achieving unity of effort. We offer five major recommendations to do that: • unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center; • unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director; • unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information-sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries; • unifying and strengthening congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability; • strengthening the FBI and homeland defenders.118 ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—ȱ With regard to intelligence, counterterrorism, and homeland security, the 9/11 Commission stated in its report to the President and Congress that congressional committee reorganization was critical to a “unity of effort” across the federal government. For intelligence oversight, it recommended a joint committee of the two houses of Congress, or a single committee in each chamber with authorizing and appropriating authority. With regard to homeland security, the commission stated: The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress.119 One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department’s successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. 116 The 9/11 Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 363. Ibid., p. 361. 118 Ibid., pp. 399-400. 119 For a discussion of the number of committees and subcommittees that could purportedly claim jurisdiction over homeland security, see House Committee Jurisdiction over Entities and Functions Transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, by (name redacted) and (name redacted), CRS congressional distribution memorandum, April 7, 2003, p. 2. 117 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŞȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security. Through not more than one authorizing committee and one appropriating subcommittee in each house, Congress should be able to ask the secretary of homeland security whether he or she has the resources to provide reasonable security against major terrorist acts within the United States and to hold the secretary accountable for the department’s performance. Recommendation: Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. Congressional leaders are best able to judge what committee should have jurisdiction over this department and its duties. But we believe that Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate, and that this committee should be a permanent standing committee with a nonpartisan staff.120 ›Ž–Ž›ȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱ The Bremer Commission took its name from its chair, then-managing director of Kissinger Associates and former U.S. ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism L. Paul Bremer III. Its official name was the National Commission on Terrorism. The commission reported to the President and Congress on June 7, 2000.121 ˜—Ž¡ȱ The commission’s recommendation on congressional organization was part of a report that warned of an increasing and changing terrorist threat. The Bremer Commission focused its attention particularly on the intelligence and international components of counterterrorism and protection of the homeland, stating: • International terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America. • Countering the growing danger of the terrorist threat requires significantly stepping up U.S. efforts. • Priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities must use the full scope of their authority to collect intelligence regarding terrorist plans and methods. • U.S. policies must firmly target all states that support terrorists. • Private sources of financial and logistical support for terrorists must be subjected to the full force and sweep of U.S. and international laws. 120 The 9/11 Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 421. See Appendix C for the citation in law to its creation and for the full text of its analysis and recommendations related to congressional organization. 121 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řşȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ • A terrorist attack involving a biological agent, deadly chemicals, or nuclear or radiological material, even if it succeeds only partially, could profoundly affect the entire nation. The government must do more to prepare for such an event. • The President and Congress should reform the system for reviewing and funding departmental counterterrorism programs to ensure that the activities and programs of various agencies are part of a comprehensive plan.122 The report contained a series of recommendations related to laws, an unratified treaty, policies, and guidelines. In some instances the commission recommended ratification or implementation; in others it recommended change or repeal. These recommendations outlined specific actions that could help the U.S. government prevent terrorist acts, reduce their likelihood, and prepare for their possibility. ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—ȱ In its report to the President and Congress, the Bremer Commission recommended that Congress “should develop mechanisms for coordinated review of the President’s counterterrorism policy and budget, rather than having each of the many relevant committees moving in different directions without regard to the overall strategy.”123 ’•–˜›Žȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱ The Gilmore Commission took its name from its chair, then-Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore III (R). Its official name was the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Gilmore Commission made five reports annually in December to the President and Congress, from December 1999 through December 2003.124 ˜—Ž¡ȱ The Gilmore Commission’s principal recommendation, which it examined in each of its five annual reports, was the promulgation of a national strategy to combat terrorism, “impelled by a stark realization that a terrorist attack on some level inside our borders is inevitable and the United States must be ready.”125 In the commission’s view, a federal strategy would be a component of the national strategy.126 And, by addressing its own organization, Congress would 122 National Commission on Terrorism, Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, transmitted to the President and Congress June 7, 2000, pp. iv-v. (Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/nct, visited December 10, 2004.) 123 Ibid., p. 35. 124 See Appendix D for the citation in law to its creation and for the full text of its analysis and recommendations related to congressional organization. 125 Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, II. Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Second Annual Report to the President and the Congress, December 15, 2000, letter from the chairman. (Available online at http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel, visited December 10, 2004.) 126 Ibid. pp.3-5. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řŖȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ be able to address the national strategy for counterterrorism and homeland security in a “cohesive way.”127 The Gilmore Commission made numerous other recommendations. The Gilmore Commission chose to establish a strategic vision that in five years—by 2009— would describe “in both appearance and reality an acceptable level of awareness, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities to cope with the uncertain and ambiguous threat of terrorism as part of dealing with all hazards.”128 The commission called its strategic vision “America’s New Normalcy,” and stated that it presented a “carefully balanced approach to the difficult question of whether to place more or less emphasis on reducing the terrorist threat versus lessening American vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks.” (Emphasis in original.) The commission said the following about the strategic vision: America’s New Normalcy in January of 2009 should reflect: • Both the sustainment and further empowerment of individual freedoms in the context of measurable advances that secure the homeland. • Consistent commitment of resources that improve the ability of all levels of government, the private sector, and our citizens to prevent terrorist attacks and, if warranted, to respond and recover effectively to the full range of threats faced by the nation. • A standardized and effective process for sharing information and intelligence among all stakeholders—one built on moving actionable information to the broadest possible audience rapidly, and allowing for heightened security with minimal undesirable economic and societal consequences. • Strong preparedness and readiness across State and local government and the private sector with corresponding processes that provide an enterprise-wide national capacity to plan, equip, train, and exercise against measurable standards. • Clear definition about the roles, responsibilities, and acceptable uses of the military domestically—that strengthens the role of the National Guard and Federal Reserve Components for any domestic mission and ensures that America’s leaders will never be confronted with competing choices of using the military to respond to a domestic emergency versus the need to project our strength globally to defeat those who would seek to do us harm. • Clear processes for engaging academia, business, all levels of government, and others in rapidly developing and implementing research, development, and standards across technology, public policy, and other areas needed to secure the homeland—a process that focuses efforts on real versus perceived needs. • Well-understood and shared process, plans, and incentives for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructures of government and in the private sector—a unified approach to managing our risks.129 (Emphasis in original.) 127 Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, IV. Implementing the National Strategy, Fourth Annual Report to the President and the Congress, December 15, 2002, p. 50. (Available online at http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel, visited December 10, 2004.) 128 Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, V. Forging America’s New Normalcy: Securing Our Homeland, Preserving Our Liberty, Fifth Annual Report to the President and the Congress, December 15, 2003, p. i. (Available online at http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel, visited December 10, 2004.) 129 Ibid., p. iv. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řŗȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ The Gilmore Commission put its strategic vision in a context somewhat different from that of other commissions, perhaps reflecting the significant representation of state and local officials, including officials with first-responder duties. The commission emphasized that the strategic vision was “fully consistent with an all-hazards approach,” stating: As our experience with SARS, West Nile Virus, monkeypox, the recent fires in California, and the current influenza epidemic have demonstrated vividly, we must be able to handle a wide variety of threats.130 In each of its reports the Gilmore Commission, among several commissions and other entities, addressed two additional major topics enmeshed in homeland security. The topics were “protecting civil liberties” and “empowering state and local government.” With regard to civil liberties, the commission’s report stated: Rather than the traditional portrayal of security and civil liberties as competing values that must be weighed on opposite ends of a balance, these values should be recognized as mutually reinforcing. Under this framework, counterterrorism initiatives would be evaluated in terms of how well they preserve all of the unalienable rights that are essential to the strength and security of our nation: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While these fundamental rights are cited in our Declaration of Independence and imbedded in our Constitution, they should not be confused with privileges, which may be imposed upon to protect national security. However, even privileges should not be imposed upon lightly; they are fundamental to our quality of life. For example, the opportunity to fly may be viewed as a privilege rather than a right, but overly stringent and arbitrary security measures not only have an economic impact but could also increase public skepticism about security measures generally.131 Regarding the states and localities, the commission stated: To achieve a truly national strategy, the Federal government must empower States and local governments by providing a clear definition of preparedness and a strategic plan and process to implement the objectives of a longer-term vision across the entire spectrum from awareness through recovery.... Officials at the Federal level should lead the development of an enterprise architecture to institutionalize intelligence and information sharing, risk assessments, better integrated planning and training, and effective requirements generation in close coordination with State and local governments and the private sector. Only through true cooperation will we achieve some sustainable measure of preparedness for the uncertain threat of terrorism.132 (Emphasis in original.) 130 Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. Yet another entity that has recommended congressional committee reorganization, the Markle Foundation, put its recommendation in the context of “Oversight: Protecting Civil Liberties and Sustaining an Effective Homeland Security Mission,” in Protecting America’s Freedom in the Information Age (New York: The Markle Foundation, October 2002), pp. 75-77. (Available online at http://swandive.securesites.net/resources/ reports_and_publications/national_security/index.php, visited December 10, 2004.) 132 Ibid., p. 7. In a follow up report to the Hart-Rudman Commission (see next section), a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recommended congressional committee reorganization in order to have one place in the House and Senate where emergency responder programs are authorized. Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003), p. 19. (Available online at http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Responders_TF.pdf, visited December 10, 2004.) 131 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řŘȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢DZȱ˜–™Ž—’ž–ȱ˜ȱŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱȱ ȱ ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—ȱ In the first two of its five annual reports, the Gilmore Commission recommended creating a committee in each chamber or a joint committee of the House and Senate that would have jurisdiction over counterterrorism and homeland security. It recommended that these committees comprise representatives of the principal authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committees, but that the new committees have their own expert staff. The commission explained the purpose of these committees: First, it would constitute a forum for reviewing all aspects of a national strategy and supporting implementation plans for combating terrorism, developed and submitted by the National Office for Combating Terrorism. [The office was proposed earlier in the commission’s second annual report.] As part of that process, the joint or each separate committee should develop a consolidated legislative plan, including authorizing language and corresponding budget and appropriations ‘benchmarks’ in response to the national strategy to combat terrorism and accompanying program and budget proposals. Second, it would serve as the ‘clearinghouse’ for all legislative proposals for combating terrorism. For separate bills (unrelated to the omnibus package related to the strategy), the committee should have first referral of such legislation, prior to the referral to the appropriate standing committee.133 In its fourth report, the Gilmore Commission’s recommendation evolved further: Recommendation: That each House of the Congress establish a separate authorizing committee and related appropriation subcommittee with jurisdiction over Federal programs and authority for Combating Terrorism/Homeland Security.134 Š›Ȭž–Š—ȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱ The Hart-Rudman Commission took its name from its co-chairs, former Senators Gary Hart (DCO) and Warren B. Rudman (R-NH). Its official name was the United States Commission [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32711. Public record. Not legal advice.