Home alone; Congress needs security plan
By Daniel J. Kaniewski

If a jury were empanelled and asked to rule on whether the federal government had failed to develop a national strategy for homeland security before September 11, the verdict could be nothing other than guilty. Acknowledging this reality, President Bush established the Office of Homeland Security following the terrorist attacks and the office is now working toward developing a comprehensive strategy for homeland security. The president, however, can rectify only half of the problem. A jury would see that the Congress, the branch with the oversight and funding roles, has thus far failed to turn its efforts inward and organize itself to address issues made painfully apparent on September 11, 2001.

Several poignant examples highlight how the legislative branch was not organized to effectively combat terrorism before September 11 - and remains disorganized today. On Sept. 10, 2001, senior officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation briefed a congressional staff working group on terrorism that the FBI's number one focus for its counterterrorism efforts was the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front (ALF/ELF). Surprised by the FBI's assessment that America's number one terrorist threat was an animal rights and an environmental group, several staff members questioned the official's statement. The FBI official reaffirmed his statement and the briefing soon ended. The congressional staff left the briefing uneasy, because after several years of hearing from outside experts about the threat of mass-casualty terrorism, the FBI was focusing on groups that posed no conceivable mass casualty threat. Because this briefing was for congressional staff (instead of for members of Congress) and the exchange occurred in a private session (rather than in a public forum), members of the committees charged with counterterrorism oversight did not hear this disturbing revelation.

Even efforts by members of Congress themselves to address the threat of terrorism failed. On March 21, 2001, a terrorism working group in the House Intelligence Committee held a hearing on "The Threat posed by Osama bin Laden and U.S. Countermeasures." That this hearing occurred well before the recent attacks raises the question: Was there information that could have benefited the entire intelligence committee or another congressional committee in its pre-September 11 oversight of counterterrorism activities? Because only an informal working group heard the testimony and because the hearing was closed to the public, Americans will likely never know the answer to this unsettling question.

To address concerns of an uncoordinated legislative branch following the recent terrorist attacks, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert announced that the Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security would be converted to a full subcommittee in the House Intelligence Committee. Though the speaker's intent was to increase coordination in the Congress, the reality is that a subcommittee simply does not have the power to pull together all the other committees and subcommittees for a common purpose. This was made infinitely more difficult in a post-September 11 environment where agencies' budgets have increased dramatically, new agencies have been created and almost 500 pieces of legislation have been introduced and referred to virtually every congressional committee. That no central authority is responsible for providing unified oversight of the agencies, their budgets and new legislation makes coordinating counterterrorism efforts in the legislative branch a daunting task for the 107th Congress.

To coordinate its efforts the Congress should adopt a structure akin to the intelligence committees and form the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism. This committee would draw select members from the 40 committees and subcommittees that currently have oversight responsibilities for homeland security. This would ensure that these committees and informal working groups would not act independently, but instead cooperatively within a new committee.

Such a proposal was put forth in legislation introduced by Senator Pat Roberts. His bill, S. Res. 165, would create the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism and would ensure that both branches are making a concerted effort to effectively combat terrorism.

Mr. Roberts is alone in his efforts, even though the Congress was provided with the recommendations of several commissions that the Congress charged to examine counterterrorism issues. These commissions made it clear that Congress needs a new committee to address homeland security issues. The Commission on National Security/21st Century, chaired by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recommended in its third report to Congress in January 2001 that the Congress "form a special select committee for homeland security to provide congressional support and oversight in this critical area." Even more specific in its recommendation, the Advisory Panel to Assess the Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, stated in its December 2000 report to the president and the Congress that a new committee should be "similar in processes of permanent select committees on intelligence."

As was the case during the 1970s when the intelligence committees were established (and budgetary and oversight authorities were taken from other committees), committee chairmen will be reluctant to endorse a Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism simply because they wish to keep their jurisdictional boundaries intact. However, keeping the status quo will hinder efforts to coordinate resources, oversight, and strategy, ultimately making the United States less prepared for future acts of terrorism.

Should a member of Congress vote against a common-sense proposal such as S.165, he or she will face a jury comprised of his or her constituents. Given that the public is now keenly aware of the threat terrorism poses to America, this jury will not hesitate to deliver its guilty verdicts on Election Day.

Daniel J. Kaniewski serves as a legislative fellow for Homeland Security issues to Rep. Curt Weldon. The views expressed in this article are his own.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 14, 2002
Pg. A19